HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/31/2001 - STAFF REPORTS DATE: October 31, 2001
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning & Building
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND GENERAL PLAN POLICY 6.22.2 TO ALLOW A
REDUCTION OF THE 20' REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK BUFFER BETWEEN
COMMERCIAL OR MIXED-USE STRUCTURES AND RESIDENTIAL USES, IN THE EVENT OF
A HARDSHIP.
CASE NO.5.0827(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.259)-APPLICATION BY LUNDIN
DEVELOPMENT CO. FOR A PROPOSED INTEGRATED, SINGLE-PHASED COMMUNITY
SHOPPING CENTER, WITH APPROXIMATELY 104,000 SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING AREA,
CONSISTING OF A SUPERMARKET, DRUG STORE WITH DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY,
THREE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, TWO OF WHICH INCLUDE DRIVE THROUGH
FACILITIES,AND THREE RETAIL BUILDINGS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.9 GROSS ACRES/8.29
NET ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND
SUNRISE WAY, C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29638-APPLICATION BY LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO. FOR
A PROPOSED EIGHT(8)LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 9.9 GROSS
ACRES/8.29 NET ACRES OF LAND, WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.13 ACRES TO
2.82 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND SUNRISE
WAY, C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Panning Commission recommends that the City Council certifythe Final Environmental Impact
Report(EIR)as complete, approve the proposed General Plan Amendment to General Plan Policy
6.22.2, Case No. 5.0827(Preliminary Planned Development District No.259)and Tentative Parcel
Map No. 29638 as described above through adoption of the attached Resolutions and Conditions
of Approval. The applicants are Mr. Herb Lundin and Mr. Gregory Beaver of the Lundin
Development Company.
SUMMARY:
At its October 17, 2001 meeting, the City Council opened the public hearing and took testimony on
the proposed project. The City Council continued the proposal to allow the developer, Ralph's and
the representatives of the Smoketree Shopping Center to respond to public comments and City
Council concerns regarding possible closure of the Ralph's store at Smoketree.
The Council subsequently directed the applicant, the major tenant (Ralph's) and the
representatives of the Smoketree Center to address this concern. The applicant, Ralph's and the
representative of the Smoketree Center, have been meeting to draft a proposal which will mitigate
the potential closure of the Ralph's at the Smoketree Center. Results of this meeting will be
presented at the City Council meeting. Other public comments addressed historic preservation,
drive through restaurants and related project matters.
M
The developer and the P.S. Modern Committee have submitted a proposal which may resolve the
historic preservation concerns. This proposal includes the developer contributing $50,000 to the
City for preparation of a historic site survey. The donation would be payable at the building permit
stage. The applicant's financial participation in the survey would be null and void if a lawsuit or
referendum were filed which challenged approval or delayed the project.
BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 2001, September 12, 2001 and September26,2001,the Planning Commission held
a public hearing on this project. At its meeting of September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission
voted 6-0, with one abstention, to recommend that the City Council approve the project. At its
October 17, 2001 meeting, the City Council continued this item to provide for a mechanism to allow
the Smoketree Ranch, as the lessor, to cancel its Ralph's lease and find a new tenant, should
Ralph's decide to close its store in that center. This would prevent the center from having a long-
term vacancy of the anchor tenant.
The proposed project includes applications for a Planned Development District and Tentative
Parcel Map for the development of an integrated, single-phased neighborhood commercial
shopping center consisting of a 57,342 square foot Ralph's Supermarket, a 16,469 square foot
Sav-On drug store with drive-through pharmacy, three fast food restaurants, two of which will
include drive-through lanes, and three retail buildings on approximately 9.9 gross acres (8.29 net
acres after dedication) at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way.
COUNCIL ACTION:
The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council:
1) Adopt a resolution certifying the EIR, including the Statement of Facts and
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2) Adopt a resolution amending General Plan Policy 6.22.2, to allow for a
reduction in the 20' buffer between commercial or mixed use projects and
residential developments in the event of a hardship; and
3) Adopt a resolution approving the Project, including Preliminary Planned
Development District and Tentative Parcel Map.
kmzG
DOUGLAS 0. EVANS
Director of Planning and Building
city Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Historic proposal
2. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR as Complete
3. Resolution Approving the Amendment to General Plan Policy 6.22.2
4. Resolution Approving Case No. 5.0827 (PD No 259) and Tentative Parcel Map No.
29638
* �
Submitted at City Council Mtg
On October 17, 2001
_ By Pete Moruzzi
Palm Springs Modern Committee
That prior to the issuance of building permits, Lundin Development Co, shall deposit S rd!00 O to the City
for the purposes of preparing a City-wide Historic Resources Survey.
These funds shall be deposited into a dedicated account and shall not be used for any other purpose.
This Condition of Approval shall become null and void if;
1. Any CEQA challenge is filed against the project's FIR, or
2. Any Referendum is legally effected, or other litigation is filed challenging the approval of this project, or
3. The project does not proceed to building permit.
The Survey's specific criteria, timing, and terms of adoption shall include input from the Palm Springs Modem
Committee and the Historic Site Preservation Board, and be approved by the City Council."
I
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AS COMPLETE,ADOPTING THE STATEMENT
OF FACTS & FINDINGS, AND ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM(CASE
NO.50827)FORAGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD NO. 259) AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29638 ON 9.9 ACRES (GROSS) OF
LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF RAMON
ROAD AND SUNRISE WAY, ZONE C-1, SECTION 14.
--------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Lundin Development Company(the"Applicant") has filed an application with the
City pursuant to Section 9402.00 for a General Plan Amendment, Preliminary Planned
Development district (No. 259); and Tentative Parcel Map 29638; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment, Preliminary Planned Development District
and Tentative Parcel Map are considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been
prepared for this Project, and the Draft Focused EIR has been distributed for public review and
comment in accordance with CEQA. The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, comments and
responses to the Draft EIR,the Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program,Technical Appendix
(including Environmental Noise Assessment and Traffic Study) Planning Commission public
hearing minutes, Notice of Preparation and comments, agency correspondence and other
miscellaneous correspondence; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to
consider the applicant's applications for the project was given in accordance with applicable law;
and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2001 and continued to September 12, 2001 and September 26, 2001,
public hearings on the Final EIR and project, respectively, for the project were held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on September 26, 2001, the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council certify the environmental impact report as
complete, and that the City Council adopt the mitigation monitoring program relating to Case
5.0827 and Tentative Parcel Map 29683; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider
the applicant's applications for the project was given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001 and October 31, 2001, public hearings on the Final EIR and
project, respectively, for the project were held by the City Council in accordance with applicable
law; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented
in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all
environmental data including the initial study, the Final Environmental Impact Report, and all
written and oral testimony presented and
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section1:
Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that the Final EIR has been prepared and completed in
compliance with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The
Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the Final EIR was presented to the
Planning Commission and the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR prior to recommending that the City Council approve the project. The Final EIR
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the proposed Project, its significant
environmental impacts, and the alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed Project. The City Council has independently reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR.
Section 2:
The City Council has reviewed and analyzed information contained in the Final EIR prior to taking
action to certify the Final EIR as complete. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The City Council further adopts the Statement of Facts and Findings and are
attached as Exhibit A. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures identified Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Final EIR, are necessary to reduce or avoid significant
impact and that certain impacts, as identified in the Final EIR, impacts to noise and cultural
resources even with implementation of all recommended mitigation measures, will remain
significant and further adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations and are attached as
Exhibit B.
Section 3:
By adoption of this resolution the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program in the Final EIR for Case No 5.0827 and Tentative Parcel Map 29638.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete and in conformity with CEQA, adopts
the Statement of Facts & Findings, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibits
A& B)and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Case Number 5.0827 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29638.
ADOPTED this 31 st day of October 2001
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By:
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM AWL
ll DRAFT
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29638 AND CASE NO. 5.0827
(PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 259)
RALPHS/SAV-ON CENTER
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Palm Springs, in approving the Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
(Preliminary Planned Development No. 259 (Ralphs/Sav-on Center or proposed project), makes
the findings of fact listed hereinafter and adopts the statement of overriding considerations which
follows these findings. These findings are supported by the facts cited in this document pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sea.
and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 1000 35
se . .
CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) Section 15091 provide:
"(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR."
These Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Final Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ralphs Sav-on Center, SCH# 2001041064 (Findings) have
been prepared for and independently reviewed by the City of Palm Springs (City)in its capacity as
the CEQA lead agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the current
discretionary action to be undertaken by the City for the approval and implementation of Tentative
Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827(Preliminary Planned Development No. 259(Ralphs/Sav-
on Center), on approximately 9.9 acres of property, as requested by the property owner, Lundin
Development Company. Approval of the referenced entitlements will permit Lundin Development
® DRAFT
/ V
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Company to demolish the existing structures and construct a new shopping center that will
encompass approximately 104,000 square feet of gross floor area.
These Findings have been divided into a number of sections in orderto present a comprehensive
overview of the information contained in the Ralphs/Sav-on Center EIR. These sections include:
(A) Section A presents an introduction to these Findings and summarizes the organization of
the document
(B) Section B provides a summary of the proposed project and an overview of other
discretionary actions, required for the proposed project, and a statement of objectives for
the Ralphs/Sav-on Center.
(C) Section C presents a summary of those activities and events which have preceded the
consideration of these Findings by the City, including the Palm Springs Planning
Commission (Commission) and Palm Springs City Council (Council) as part of the
environmental review and public participation process.
(D) Section D sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were identified
in the Initial Study or project EIR which were determined to be nonsignificant, without any
mitigation.
(E) Section E sets forth the potentially significant effects of the proposed project, which can
feasibly be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of those
measures included in the proposed project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP).
(F) Section F sets forth findings regarding the significant orpotentially significant environmental
impacts which will orwhich may result from the construction and/or operation of the Project
and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
(G) Section G provides findings regarding those alternativesto the proposed projectwhich were
examined in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ralphs Sav-on Center,
SCH# 2001041064, considered by the City as part of its deliberations on the proposed
project and its environmental documentation, and not selected by the Commission for
implementation.
(H) Section H sets forth mitigation measures for the proposed project which were identified in
the Final EIR, but not adopted by the City for implementation by the project, and states the
reasons that the City determined not to adopt these mitigation measures.
(1) Section I contains a summary of the benefits that will accrue to the City from
implementation of the proposed project.
(J) Section J consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the City's
rationale for finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other
considerations associated with the proposed project outweigh the project's potential
unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
-2-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
Note that Sections I and J are provided under separate cover.
The findings set forth in each section herein are supported by findings and facts identified in the
administrative record of the proposed project as developed and compiled by the CEQA lead
agency, the City of Palm Springs.
B. PROJECT SUMMARY
BA Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Palm Springs at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and
Sunrise Way, in Section 14 of T4S R4E of the Palm Springs USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle
topographic map series(see attached Figure 1). The easterly half of the site is currently developed
as a commercial shopping center, with retail space of approximately 42,000 square feet (sf), not
including a recently(1999)demolished automotive service station near the southeast corner of the
property. The westerly half of the project site is undeveloped with scattered desert brush. There
are currently seven driveways that serve the site from the two aforementioned streets. Figure 3-1
of the Final EIR shows the location of the project site.
B.2 Project Description
The proposed project is the subdivision of 9.9 gross acres,or 8.29 net acres, into eight commercial
parcels, ranging in size from 0.13 acres to 2.82 acres. The existing commercial buildings on the
eastern half of the site are proposed to be demolished in order to allow new parking areas, drive
aisles and buildings to be constructed. The existing tenants have leases with termination and
relocation clauses and will be required to vacate and relocate their business to an alternative
location. In conjunction with the Tentative Parcel Map (No. 29638), new perimeter landscaping,
new perimeter walkways, reciprocal easements for public utilities, access, parking and drainage
will be provided, as well as any additional dedications to accommodate full street width
improvements along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way.
The Preliminary Planned Development proposal (No. 259) is for the development of a new
integrated shopping center consisting of a 57,342 sf supermarket,a 16,469 sf drug store with drive-
up pharmacy, two quick-service restaurants with 3,500 sf and 3,050 sf pads, and various other
retail shop space of 23,765 sf. Existing building improvements on the eastern half of the site will
be removed and replaced with new structures on the whole site, as described above, parking lots,
landscaping and other improvements customary with development of a retail shopping center.
Before this project can be implemented, the City of Palm Springs must provide the developer of
this project with the land use entitlements needed to construct the proposed commercial
development and related infrastructure facilities. The following discretionary actions or approvals
will be made by the City of Palm Springs before development can proceed and operate:
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638,
• Approval of Preliminary Planned Development District No. 259,
• A finding or determination of compliance with Draft Section 14 Master Development
Plan/Specific Plan,
• Approval of Conditional Use Permits within the C-1 Zone (for individual businesses
in the shopping center, if necessary),
• Issuance of Grading and Building Permits, and
-3-
1 6-4
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
• Acquisition of a liquor license for both the Ralph's and Sav-On stores.
In addition to the above discretionary actions,this EIR may also be used by the following agencies
for related reviews and approvals:
• Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-encroachment
permits for Baristo Flood Channel and stormwater control features; and
• Desert Water Agency-site irrigation, domestic and fire protection water supply
requirements.
The proposed project is best suited to be processed as a Planned Development District, pursuant
to the provisions of section 9403.00 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The project may be reviewed
for compliance in conjunction with the Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan,
proposed by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Therefore, both applications will be
considered concurrently by the Planning Commission and the City Council as required perthe City
of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance.
The basic objective of the Shopping Center project identified in the Final EIR is to develop an
integrated shopping center on a seven lot commercial subdivision of a 9.9-acre parcel. Specific
objectives include:
A. Provide site features, such as landscaping, access and parking,and new retail businesses
that improve and expand the existing shopping center use of part of the site.
B. Provide for comprehensive planning of the site, which will assure the orderly development
of the site in relation to the surrounding community, and be consistent with the City's
General Plan.
C. Preserve the integrity of the existing flood control easement and water supply well
structures related to the site.
D. Provide an attractive, high quality shopping center for local residents to utilize for the daily
shopping needs.
E. Generate revenues sufficient to construct the new structures in a manner consistent with
the existing modern architectural theme;provide adequate infrastructure at the project site;
and provide a positive return on investment to the project developer.
F. Attract customers who can walk, ride mass-transit or use alternative modes of travel
(bicycles) to this shopping center and/or drive minimal distance for their shopping needs
in order to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled in the City of Palm Springs.
G. Limit operational impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses to ensure that the shopping
center can function as a compatible neighbor.
H. Incorporate design features to minimize demands for public services, such as demand for
police, fire and emergency response.
C. CEQA REVIEW PROCESS
The City of Palm Springs Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and certified the Final
EIR for the proposed project and considered all written and verbal public testimony on the project.
The public or administrative record for the project EIR is composed of the following elements:
• Distribution of the Notice of Preparation for the project, April 5, 2001
• Distribution of the proposed project EIR, July 2001
• First Planning Commission Meeting, August 22, 2001
-4-
/b7
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
• Distribution of the proposed project Final EIR, September 2001
• Second Planning Commission Meeting, September 2001
City Council Meeting of September 2001
• All administrative records and staff reports compiled in support of the proposed project and
made available to the Commission and Council.
• All hearing proceedings, minutes, and other materials provided to the Commission and
Council for consideration at the September 2001 public hearing.
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions
upon the proposed project are located at the City of Palm Springs Planning Division (Department)
at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. The Planning Division is the custodian
of the administrative record for the proposed project.
D. FACTS AND FINDINGS: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN
THE FINAL EIR AS NONSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITHOUT MITIGATION
Presented below are the environmental findings made by the City of Palm Springs as a result of
its review of the documents referenced above; and consideration of written and oral comments on
the proposed project at public hearings,including all other information provided during the decision-
making process. These findings provide a summary of the information contained in the EIR,
related technical documents, and the public hearing record that have been referenced by the City
in making its decision to approve the proposed project.
The EIR prepared for the proposed project evaluated three major environmental issue categories
for potential significant adverse impacts. These major environmental issue categories,in the order
presented in the EIR, are: air quality, noise and historical resources. In addition to those issues
considered in the EIR,the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project which was used to narrow
the focus of issues that were considered in the EIR addressed the following issues (in the order
presented in the Initial Study:land use planning,population and housing,geologic problems,water,
transportation/circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, public
services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation. The EIR and
Initial Study reached a total of 15 findings on environmental issues. Short-and long-term impacts
and project-specific and cumulative impacts were included in the evaluation of potential
environmental effects from implementing the proposed project. Some of the issue categories
contained several sub-issues categories(for example, public services considered five sub-issues)
which are summarized below.
Of these 15 major environmental categories and findings, the City concurs with the facts and
findings in the EIR and Initial Study that the issues and sub-issues discussed in this section fall
below a significant impact threshold without any mitigation. Those environmental issue categories
identified in the EIR as having no potential for significant adverse impact, without mitigation, are
described and summarized in the following text. Issues requiring mitigation to reduce impacts to
a nonsignificant level and unavoidable(unmitigable)significant adverse impacts of the project are
described in following sections of this document as outlined above.
In the following presentation,each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the
potential significant adverse environmental effect and a short discussion of the findings and facts
in the administrative record, as defined above.
-5- 4
! � v
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
D.1 LAND USE PLANNING
D.1.a Potential Effect: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project would not
conflict with the general plan designation or zoning for the project site.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project site is designed C-1 on both the City's General Plan Land Use Map and the Zone Map. For
that portion of the Tribe's property within the proposed project's boundaries, the Tribal Planning
staff indicated that the proposed neighborhood commercial convenience center is in conformance
with the spirit and intent of the plan. The proposed development was found to be consistent with
these land use designations and the provisions of Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance.
D.1.b Potential Effect: Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project would not
conflict with any of the applicable environmental plans or policies.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: the proposed
project will be implemented under the Planned Development District guidelines and philosophy
which ensures compatibility with applicable plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project. The comment letters from the agencies with jurisdiction over the project,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Desert Water Agency,
support this finding.
D.1.d Potential Effect: Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project would not
adversely impact any agricultural resources or operations.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: the proposed
project is being developed on a site that has no agricultural operations; no agricultural resources;
and no soils suitable for agricultural production.
-6-
/009
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findln s
D.1.e Potential Effect: Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community
(including low-income or minority community)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established
community.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: the proposed
project is located on the comer of a major intersection where an existing shopping center exists.
Because this site occurs at a location where no disruption or division of the existing community can
occur and because the proposed project will be implemented under the Planned Development
District guidelines and philosophy, no potential for adverse impacts due to disruption or division of
the community can occur.
D.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
D.2.a Potential Effect: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had a less
than significant potential to cause a cumulative exceedance of regional or local
population projections.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: the proposed
project will replace an existing shopping center and the indirect effect of adding about 100 or so
more employees at the new Center was determined to be a small scale project relative to the
regional and local employment base. Thus, the net potential increase in population within the
community will continue to fall within that forecast in the General Plan and regional planning
documents.
D.2.b Potential Effect: Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g.
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential to induce substantial growth in the area directly or indirectly.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: the proposed
project will replace an existing shopping center and the indirect effect of adding about 100 or so
more employees at the new center was determined to be a small scale project relative to the
-7-
It
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
regional and local employment base. Further,the project incorporates a redevelopment component
within the already urbanized portion of the City so it can be considered "infill"development. Thus,
no extension of infrastructure is required to support the proposed project and it has no potential to
induce substantial growth, either directly or indirectly.
D.2.c Potential Effect: Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential to displace housing and should benefit affordable housing in the area by
providing a new and expanded commercial-service center within walking distance
of several apartment complexes.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: the proposed
project site does not contain any housing resources, so no direct displacement of housing can
occur. The indirect effect of the project is considered beneficial because the site can serve
immediately adjacent multi-family housing and is served by good mass transit facilities which will
allow good access by users of the mass transit system.
D.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
D.3.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: a) Fault rupture?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential exposure to fault rupture at the project site.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: according to the
City Seismic and Safety Element the proposed project site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo
or City adopted special study zone. This means that there are no known active faults that occur
on or near the project site. Therefore,the proposed project has no potential to expose humans or
structures to potential fault rupture impacts.
D.3.c Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential unstable earth conditions at the project site based on a review of the City's
Seismic Safety Element to the City General Plan.
Facts in Support of Findings:
-8-
mb
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: according to the
City Seismic and Safety Element the proposed project site is not located within an area that
contains any known unstable earth conditions, including liquefaction. The conditions that would
support liquefaction, sandy substrate combined with a high water table do not exist at the project
site. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to expose humans or structures to potential
ground failure during a regional earthquake related to liquefaction.
D.3.d Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential for exposure to seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazards at the project site
based on a review of the City's Seismic Safety Element to the City General Plan.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: according to the
City Seismic and Safety Element the proposed project site is not located within an area that
contains any exposure to a water body that could cause a seiche or tsunami. Further, no volcanic
hazards are known to occur within the Coachella Valley region. The conditions that would support
exposure to seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazards do not occur in the vicinity of the project site.
Therefore,the proposed project has no potential to expose humans or structures to these potential
hazards.
D.3.e Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: e) Landslides or mudflows?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project had no
potential for exposure to landslides or mudflows at the project site based on a
review of the City's Seismic Safety Element to the City General Plan.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: according to the
City Seismic and Safety Element the proposed project site is essentially flat and not located near
any mountain slopes or stream channels that could expose it to landslides or mudslides. The
conditions that would support exposure to landslides and mudslides do not occur in the vicinity of
the project site. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to expose humans or structures
to potential landslide or mudslide hazards.
D.3.f Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or,expose people to potential impacts involving:
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading and fill?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
-9-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to cause any significant changes in site topography, to induce significant
erosion from the site or to be exposed to unstable soil conditions.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The whole project
site is essentially flat. No unstable soil conditions are known to occur on the project site, and
further the past development of the site demonstrates that no major unstable soil constraints exist
at the project site or that erosion has resulted from development. The developer must submit a
mandatory soils report for review and approval by the City which will further verify the lack of
unstable soil conditions. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to change site topo-
graphy; to induce significant erosion or to be exposed to unstable soil conditions.
D.3.g Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: g) Subsidence of the land?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to expose structures to significant subsidence, nor to cause significant
subsidence.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: No unstable soil
conditions are known to occur on the project site, and further the past development of the site
demonstrates that no majorsubsidence has occurred since 1962 when the original shopping center
was constructed. The developer must submit a mandatory soils report for review and approval by
the City which will further verify the lack of soil conditions on the site that could result in subsidence.
Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to induce significant subsidence or to expose
structures to significant subsidence hazards.
D.3.h Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: h) Expansive soils?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to expose structures to expansive soils?
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: No unstable soil
conditions are known to occur on the project site, and further the past development of the site
demonstrates that the soils on the site are sand or sandy loams in character which have little or no
expansive character. The developer must submit a mandatory soils report for review and approval
by the City which will further verify the lack of soil conditions on the site that could result in subsi-
dence. Therefore,the proposed project has no potential to expose structures to significant hazards
from expansive soil.
-10-
At
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
D.3.i Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential unique geologic or physical features that could be impacted by proposed
development.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The site is
essentially level and underlain by alluvial sediments that have no unique geological or physical
features or characteristics. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to adversely impact
any such features or characteristics.
D.3.0 Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
j) Is a major land form, ridge line, canyon, etc. involved.
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential major land forms, no ridges and no canyons or other similar features that
could be impacted by proposed development.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The site is
essentially level and underlain by alluvial sediments that have no unique land form, ridge line,
canyon or other unique physical features or characteristics. Therefore, the proposed project has
no potential to adversely impact any such features or characteristics.
D.4 WATER
D.4.a Potential Effect: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or rate and amount of
surface runoff?
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has a
potential to increase runoff from the project site due to reduced absorption rates.
This increase was determined-to less than significant. No change in drainage
pattern will result from development of the property which all currently drains to that
adjacent road system.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The undeveloped
portion of the project site will be paved or otherwise have impervious cover installed as shown on
the tentative tract map. This will increase runoff, but the runoff will be controlled by directing it to
a detention basin that will reduce peak runoff to acceptable levels. Based on the size of the project
area not yet developed, about 4.5 acres, the conclusion was reached that the runoff would not
-11-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
cause a negative impact on surrounding roadways or property. In conjunction with the tract map,
the developer must submit a mandatory drainage report for review and approval by the City which
will further verify the volume of water released from the site will not result in a significant increase
in the rate or volume of surface runoff. Runoff will be directed to the existing road drainage system
or to the Baristo Wash Storm Channel where it presently flows. Therefore, the proposed project
has no potential to cause a significant increase in runoff or any modification to the existing drainage
pattern.
DAA Potential Effect: Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to change the amount of surface water in any water body.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: There are no
permanent natural water bodies on or near the project site. Due to the type of project, its location
and mandatory engineering design requirements (see the tentative tract map)for projects within
the City, the amount of water within ephemeral water bodies, such as the Baristo Wash Storm
Channel, will not be changed by any significant amount of water discharged from the project. In
conjunction with the tract map,the developer must submit a mandatory drainage report for review
and approval by the City which will further verify the volume of water released from the site will not
result in a significant increase in the rate or volume of surface runoff. Therefore, the proposed
project has no potential to cause a significant increase in the amount of surface water in any water
body, either directly or indirectly.
D.4.e Potential Effect: Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movement?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to change the course or direction of water movement.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: There are no
permanent natural water bodies on or near the project site and all surface runoff on and adjacent
to the site either flows in street section or in Baristo Wash Storm Channel which traverses the
project site. See the tentative tract map. Due to the type of project, its location and mandatory
engineering design requirements for projects within the City,the direction of surface runoff flow on
the site and in adjacent water conveying facilities will not undergo any change from implementing
the proposed project. In addition to the tract map, the developer must submit a mandatory
drainage report for review and approval by the City which will further verify the continued direction
or course of water movement. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to cause any
modification in the course or direction of water movement.
-12-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
DAJ Potential Effect: Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capacity?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to change the quantity of ground waters, directly or indirectly.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The existing
Desert Water Agency well on the property provides water from the ground water aquifer for
domestic water supply purposes and groundwater is more than 100 feet below the ground surface
at this location. The project has no potential to add or extract water from the groundwater aquifer
since it does not include any wells. The depth to the water table is sufficient to prevent interception
of the aquifer by the shallow grading that will be conducted on the project site. Finally,the project
site is not located within a known recharge area because there are no sources of surface water that
could deliver the water to the site to support recharge. All surface runoff on and adjacent to the
site either flows directly into street sections or in Baristo Wash Storm Channel(a concrete channel)
which traverses the project site. See the tentative tract map. Therefore,the proposed project has
no potential to cause any change in the quantity of ground waters through any means.
D.4.g Potential Effect: Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project has
no potential to add or extract water from the groundwater aquifer since it does not include any
wells. The depth to the water table is sufficient to prevent interception of the aquifer by the shallow
grading that will be conducted on the project site. Finally, the project site is not located within a
known recharge area because there are no sources of surface water that could deliver the water
to the site to support recharge. All surface runoff on and adjacent to the site either flows directly
into street sections or in Baristo Wash Storm Channel (a concrete channel) which traverses the
project site. See the tentative tract map. Therefore,the proposed project has no potential to alter
the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
DAJ Potential Effect: Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to substantially reduce the amount of groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies?
-13-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project has
no potential to add or extract water from the groundwater aquifer since it does not include any
wells. Therefore, project implementation has no potential to directly affect ground water resources
or the amount of water available for public water supplies. Indirectly the project will create some
small amount of demand for groundwater, but the Desert Water Agency's Urban Water Master
Plan indicates that it has sufficient water to meet demand within it service area, including potential
infill development such as this proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential
to directly affect groundwater resources, and the effect of the project's additional demand for
groundwater resources was concluded to be nonsignificant based on the ability of the local water
purveyor to manage groundwater extractions without significant adverse impacts on public water
supplies.
D.5 AIR QUALITY
D.5.c Potential Effect: Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to cause any change in any climate variables.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project is
located in the Coachella Valley which is in the transition between the Mojave Desert and Sonoran
Desert. The site encompasses less than 10 acres out of the several hundred thousand acres of
the Coachella Valley. Based on the size and nature of the proposed project, it has no potential to
alter climate variables, such as temperature, rainfall, humidity, wind and other parameters.
Therefore, project implementation has no potential to directly or indirectly affect the area climate
or weather.
D.5.d Potential Effect: Create objectionable odors?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will
generate odors due to fast food restaurants, but these odors will be less than
adverse because they are common odors within an urban environment.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project will
generate fast food odors, but no other odor sources have been identified. Fast food odors were
not identified as being adverse and with no other odors,the potential to create objectionable odors
was identified as being nonsignificant without mitigation. Therefore,project implementation will not
cause the creation of significant odors.
-14-
14 /
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
D.6 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
D.6.f Potential Effect: Hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclist?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause significant hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project is
designed to minimize truck and automobile conflicts with pedestrian operations. Trucks are routed
away from the front of the shopping center, while the layout of the center presented to the City
shows a high degree of pedestrian access across the property to the stores at the center.
Therefore,project implementation will cause some hazards(no barriers)for pedestrian and bicycle
access, but based on the site design, the hazards have been minimized and good access for
alternative transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists,is not forecast to cause a significant
hazard to these modes of access to the shopping center.
D.6.g Potential Effect: Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause significant conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project is
designed to fully meet adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Specifically, as the
tract maps and related materials illustrate, the project will provide bus access to the site; bicycle
access to the site;and improvements in sidewalks to enhance pedestrian access. This project fully
supports alternative transportation policies. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project
will not cause any significant conflicts with City policies supporting alternative transportation.
D.6.h Potential Effect: Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to cause any adverse impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is not near any rail, waterborne or air traffic systems. Therefore, the implementation of the
proposed project has no potential to affect these transportation systems.
-15-
ih1r
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
13.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
D.7.a Potential Effect: Would the project result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened, or rare
species or their habitats (including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause any adverse impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitat.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The eastern half
of the project site is developed with an existing shopping center. The western half of the site
contains a highly disturbed desert scrub habitat with a high population of nonnative species
according to the City staffs inspection of the project site. Due to the small area, its isolation from
native habitat (the site is surrounded by urban development) and the high degree of disturbance,
no potential exists for endangered, threatened or rare species, or their habitat, to occur at the
project site. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project has no potential to affect these
sensitive biological resources.
D.7.b Potential Effect: Would the project result in impacts to: Locally designated species?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause any adverse impacts to locally designated species or their habitat.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The eastern half
of the project site is developed with an existing shopping center. The western half of the site
contains a highly disturbed desert scrub habitat with a high population of nonnative species
according to the City staffs inspection of the project site. No locally designated species were
identified that could occur on the project site. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed
project has no potential to affect any locally designated species or their habitat.
D.7.c Potential Effect: Would the project result in impacts to: Locally designated natural
communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause any adverse impacts to locally designated natural communities or habitat.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The eastern half
of the project site is developed with an existing shopping center. The western half of the site
-16-
14/4
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
contains a highly disturbed desert scrub habitat with a high population of nonnative species
according to the City staffs inspection of the project site. No locally designated natural communi-
ties/habitat were identified that could occur on the project site. Therefore, the implementation of
the proposed project has no potential to affect any locally designated natural communities or
habitat.
D.7.d Potential Effect: Would the project result in impacts to: Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh,
riparian and vernal pools)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause any adverse impacts to wetland habitat.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The eastern half
of the project site is developed with an existing shopping center. The western half of the site
contains a highly disturbed desert scrub habitat with a high population of nonnative species
according to the City staffs inspection of the project site. No wetland habitat occurs on the project
site that could be impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, the implementation of the
proposed project has no potential to affect any wetland habitat.
D.7.e Potential Effect: Would the project result in impacts to: Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause any adverse impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The eastern half
of the project site is developed with an existing shopping center. The western half of the site
contains a highly disturbed desert scrub habitat with a high population of nonnative species
according to the City staffs inspection of the project site. The site is surrounded by urban
development and the Baristo Wash Storm Channel is a concrete channel that provides no wildlife
dispersal value. Since the site does not connect to any other natural habitat, no potential exists
for wildlife dispersal or migration corridor values to exist on the project site. Therefore, the imple-
mentation of the proposed project has no potential to affect any wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors.
D.7.f Potential Effect: Would the project result in impacts to: Is consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a trustee agency required?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
-17-
162d
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
valuable or sensitive biological resources and no consultation is required with the
California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The eastern half
of the project site is developed with an existing shopping center. The western half of the site
contains a highly disturbed desert scrub habitat with a high population of nonnative species
according to the City staffs inspection of the project site. Due to the small area, its isolation from
native habitat (the site is surrounded by urban development) and the high degree of disturbance,
the biological resources on the property do not require consultation with either trustee agency.
D.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
D.8.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal create: Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause any significant conflicts with any adopted energy conservation plans.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project must conform with the most current energy conservation standards for buildings and based
on the size and nature of the proposed development, a shopping center with approximately
104,000 square feet of space, it will replace older structures that do not meet current energy
conservation requirements. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project has no potential
to conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
D.8.b Potential Effect: Would the proposal create: Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
cause the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project must conform with the most current energy conservation standards for buildings and based
on the size and nature of the proposed development, a shopping center with approximately
104,000 square feet of space, it will replace older structures that do not meet current energy
conservation requirements. The new structures will be constructed with material comprised of non-
renewable resources, but these materials are commercially available and the non-renewable
resources will not be utilized in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Therefore, the implementation of
-18-
1 hal
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
the proposed project has no potential to consume non-renewable resources in a wasteful or
inefficient manner.
D.8.c Potential Effect: Would the proposal create: Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to cause the loss of access to mineral resources of value to the region and
state.
Facts in Support of Findinas7
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is located in the urban portion of the City of Palm Springs and no mineral resources of
significant value are identified within this portion of the City. Therefore,the implementation of the
proposed project has no potential to affect any mineral resources that may be of value to the region
and residents of the state.
D.9 HAZARDS
D.9.b Potential Effect: Would the proposal: Create possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is located in the urban portion of the City of Palm Springs and all major construction will be
on private property, not adjacent roads. The minor improvements on the adjacent local roads has
no potential to adversely affect emergency response or emergency evacuation plans in the project
area. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project has no potential to adversely affect
these plans within the City of Palm Springs.
D.9.c Potential Effect: Would the proposal: Create any health hazard or potential health hazard?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create any health hazard or potential health hazard.
Facts in Support of Findings:
-19-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is a commercial shopping center that was determined by the Department of Planning and
Building to not pose or create any health hazard or potential health hazard because of the type of
use and materials handled at the shopping center. Existing regulations for handling household
hazardous materials were deemed sufficient to eliminate any potentially significant creation of
health hazards. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project will not create a significant
health hazard or potential health hazard within the City of Palm Springs.
D.9.d Potential Effect: Would the proposal: Create exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
result in the exposure of people to existing sources of health hazards.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project includes an existing commercial shopping center that will be demolished to make way for
the new center. Detailed site investigations indicate that a service station that previously existed
on the property was properly closed and did not leave any residual contamination that could expose
people to any health hazards. Further,the existing structure may contain asbestos which must be
collected and disposed of in accordance with strict air quality regulations that do not require any
additional mitigation. These mandatory procedures are fully protective of humans and ensure no
exposure to significant health hazards. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project will
not create a significant exposure of people to any health hazard or potential health hazard within
the City of Palm Springs.
D.9.e Potential Effect: Would the proposal: Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
result in an increase in the risk of wildland fire hazards due to flammable brush,
grass, or trees.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is located in the urban portion of the City of Palm Springs and does not have sufficient fuel
load to pose a wildland fire hazards since is has a minimal amount of brush and grass and no
trees. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project has no potential to increase wildland
fire hazards in any manner.
D.10 NOISE
-20-
� /� � 3
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Sfafement of Facts and Findin s
D.10.c Potential Effect: Will the project be compatible with the noise compatibility planning criteria
according to Table 6F of the Palm Springs Municipal Code F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility
study?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will be
compatible with Table 6F of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
Facts in Su000rt of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is developed in a portion of the City that is not located near the Palm Springs Airport and its noise
contours. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project has no potential to conflict with
Table 6F of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, i.e., it is not affected by Table 6F and is compatible
with airport noise requirements contained in this table.
D.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
D.11.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following areas? Fire protection?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings- The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for fire protection service.
Facts in Support of Findings•
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is located in the City and has two fire stations located approximately a mile distant from the site.
The new center will replace an existing center and will have updated fire protection designs that
will reduce the potential for structural fires. The project site was identified as being within the City's
five minute response time and the incremental demand of this project was found not to create a
significant new demand for fire protection service. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed
project will not cause a significant effect on fire protection services within the City of Palm Springs.
D.11.b Potential Effect: Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following areas? Police Protection?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for police protection service.
Facts in Support of Findings
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is located in the City's urban area within two miles of the City Police Station. The new center will
replace an existing center and will have updated safety protection designs that will reduce the
-21-
16 ;? y
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
potential demand for police protection service. The incremental demand of this project for police
service was found not to be significant. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project will
not cause a significant effect on police protection services within the City of Palm Springs.
D.11.c Potential Effect: Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following areas? Schools?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for school capacity.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is located in the City's urban area and will not generate any direct demand for school capacity. The
new center will replace an existing center and will pay school fees as required for all new
construction to mitigate potential impacts to the school district. This was confirmed in letter from
the Palm Springs Unified School District, dated April 24, 2000. Therefore, the implementation of
the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on school education services within the City
of Palm Springs.
D.11.e Potential Effect: Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following areas? Other government services?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant demand for other government services.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is located in the City's urban area and where the existing public service system has been
established for many years. No other services were identified that might be impacted by
implementing the proposed project. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project will not
cause a significant effect on other government services within the City of Palm Springs.
D.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
D.12.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for power or natural gas supplies.
Facts in Support of Findings:
-22-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The new center
will replace an existing center and will have updated energy conservation designs incorporated into
the structures to reduce energy consumption, both natural gas and electric power. All utility and
service systems already exist at the site and based on the character and relatively small size of the
project, particularly given that it is a redevelopment of an existing shopping center, it is not forecast
to cause significant demand for power or natural gas utility resources. Therefore, the implemen-
tation of the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on power or,natural gas utility
systems within the City of Palm Springs.
D.12.b Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Communications?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for communication systems.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The new center
Will replace an existing center and will have updated communication system designs incorporated
into the structures to meet the currently available systems at the project site. All utility and service
systems already exist at the site and based on the character and relatively small size of the project,
particularly given that it is a redevelopment of an existing shopping center, it is not forecast to
cause significant demand for communication system resources. Therefore,the implementation of
the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on communication systems within the City
of Palm Springs.
D.12.d Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Sewer or Septic Tanks?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for sewer or septic tanks.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is connected to the regional sewer system, so there is no septic system to impact. The new
center will replace an existing center and will have new connections to the sewer system to meet
the current requirements of the regional wastewater agency. All utility and service systems already
exist at the site and based on the character and relatively small size of the project, particularly
given that it is a redevelopment of an existing shopping center, it is not forecast to cause significant
demand for sewer system capacity. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project will not
cause a significant effect on either the sewer system within the City of Palm Springs, or to septic
tanks which are not used at the project site.
D.12.f Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Solid Waste Disposal?
-23-
1 ,4 26
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for the solid waste disposal system.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is already served by a local waste collection service that collects, processes and delivers
solid waste and recycled material to appropriate end locations. The new center will replace an
existing center and will continue to be served by the local collection contractor, that must meet
current recycling requirements of the City under its Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Based on the character and relatively small size of the project, particularly given that it is a
redevelopment of an existing shopping center,it is notforecastto cause significant demand for new
solid waste disposal system capacity. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project will
not cause a significant effect on either the solid waste management system within the City of Palm
Springs.
D.12.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Local or regional water supplies?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will not
create significant new demand for local or regional water supplies.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is connected to the local water supply system. The new center will replace an existing
center and will have new connections to the local water distribution system to meet the current
requirements of the water serving agency. All utility and service systems already exist at the site
and based on the character and relatively small size of the project, particularly given that it is a
redevelopment of an existing shopping center, it is not forecast to cause significant demand for the
water supply system capacity.Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project will not cause
a significant effect on the local water supply system within the Desert WaterAgency service area.
Also, refer to the discussion under issue D.4.f which further addresses the water supply issue.
D.13 AESTHETICS
D.13.a Potential Effect: Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will affect
the visual setting of a local scenic corridor, but this affect is not forecast to result in
a significant adverse impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway.
Facts in Support of Findings:
-24-
1 �� 7
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Flndin s
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The new center
will replace an existing center and will have updated site landscaping designs incorporated into the
project to fully comply with the City's current landscape design requirements. Specifically, both
Ramon Road and Sunrise Way are City Designated Scenic Corridors. To meet the requirements
for enhancement of visual amenities of local and regional highway travel, the project does include
landscaped parkways along all street frontages and upgraded architectural features beyond
corporate design standards,including an undulating landscape berm;upgraded landscape palette;
decorative screening; and perimeter walls. Based on the incorporation of these features into
project design, the implementation of the proposed project will not cause a significant adverse
effect on identified scenic corridor values or to any scenic vistas.
D.13.b Potential Effect: Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will affect
the visual setting, but this affect is not forecast to result in a significant adverse
aesthetic impact on the existing visual setting at the project site.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The new center
will replace an existing center which is presently in deteriorated condition. The proposed project
will have updated site landscaping designs incorporated into the project to fully comply with the
City's current landscape design requirements. To ensure that the proposed project has a positive
aesthetic effect on the existing visual setting, the project includes landscaped parkways along all
street frontages and upgraded architectural features beyond corporate design standards, including
an undulating landscape berm; upgraded landscape palette; decorative screening; and perimeter
walls. Further,the existing undeveloped and highly disturbed adjacent parcel will be integrated into
the new project design. Based on the incorporation of these features into project design, the
implementation of the proposed project will not cause a significant negative aesthetic effect on the
existing visual setting.
D.13.c Potential Effect: Create light and glare?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project will
incorporate new lighting, but this affect is not forecast to result in a significant
adverse light and glare impact on the existing visual setting at the project site.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The new center
will replace an existing center which is presently in deteriorated condition and contains lighting that
does not meet current standards. The proposed project will have updated lighting designs
incorporated into the project to fully comply with the City's current street lighting and lighted sign
requirements. To ensure that the proposed project does not adversely impact Palomar
Observatory, the new lighting will comply with County lighting requirements to protect the
Observatory's operations. Based on the incorporation of these lighting features into project design,
-25-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
the implementation of the proposed project will not cause a significant light and glare effect on the
existing visual setting.
D.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
D.14.a Potential Effect: Disturb paleontological resources?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to disturb or otherwise adversely impact paleontological resources.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is underlain by recent alluvium which has very low potential, according to the City General Plan,
to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project has
no potential to cause a significant disturbance or adverse effect on paleontological resources.
D.14.b Potential Effect: Disturb archaeological resources?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to disturb or otherwise adversely impact archaeological resources.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is not located within an identified Archaeological Resources Area, according to the City General
Plan. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed project has no potential to cause a significant
disturbance or adverse effect on archaeological resources.
D.14A Potential Effect: Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to disturb or otherwise adversely impact unique ethnic cultural values.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is not located within an identified location with unique ethnic cultural values according to the City
General Plan. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project has no potential to cause a
significant disturbance or adverse effect on such values.
D.14.e Potential Effect: Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
areas?
-26-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findinqs: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to disturb or otherwise adversely impact on existing religious or sacred
uses at the project site
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is not located within an identified location where existing religious or sacred uses are conducted
according to the City General Plan. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project has no
potential to cause a significant disturbance or adverse effect on such uses.
D.15 RECREATION
D.15.a Potential Effect: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to significantly increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
Facts in Support of Findings:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is the replacement of an existing neighborhood shopping center with a newer and slightly
larger shopping center. The construction and operation of this facility was determined to have no
potential to affect demand for existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the implementation of the
proposed project has no potential to cause a significant increase in demand for such existing
facilities
D.15.b Potential Effect: Affect existing recreational opportunities?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findinqs: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project has no
potential to significantly affect any existing recreational opportunities.
Facts in Support of Findinqs•
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The proposed
project is the replacement of an existing neighborhood shopping center with a newer and slightly
larger shopping center. No recreation facilities exist on the project site that could be adversely
impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project has no
potential to cause any adverse impact to existing recreational opportunities.
Based upon the findings presented in the Final EIR, the above described environmental issues
have been determined by the City to be: (1) adequately addressed in the Final EIR; and
-27-
14
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
(2) impacted to a degree deemed by the City to be less than significant without any mitigation. No
substantial evidence was subsequently presented to or identified by the City which further modified
or otherwise altered the City's less-than-significant determination for each of these environmental
issues. This concludes the summary of environmental impacts that were identified in the Final EIR
and the Initial Study as nonsignificant impacts related to implementation of the proposed project.
E. FACTS AND FINDINGS: POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL WHICH IS
NOT SIGNIFICANT
The following issues were identified in the Final EIR as having a potential to cause significant effect
or impact, but were identified as being capable of having impacts reduced below a significant level
by implementing the identified mitigation measures. In the following presentation, each resource
issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential significant adverse environmental
effect and a short discussion of the findings and facts in the administrative record, as defined
above.
The City hereby finds that all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that will be
implemented to mitigate the impacts of this project have been incorporated into,or required of,the
project to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more
significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed
environmental impact report;
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; and/or
C. Specific economic,social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
The City hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081, that the following issues are
nonsignificant impacts because mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined below. The
City further finds that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are required to reduce
the potential impacts discussed below to a level of nonsignificance. These issues and the
measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows.
E.1 LAND USE PLANNING
E.1.c Potential Effect: Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
create significant incompatibility with existing adjacent land uses in the vicinity, but
available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
-28-
/ 44/
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Facts Supportinq Finding•
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The project
site is located adjacent to existing multi-family residential complexes. A potential exists for the
shopping center operations, particularly truck unloading operations, to be incompatible with these
existing uses. The project proposed design components that included block walls and landscaping
to reduce this potential incompatibility. However, the air quality and noise analyses in the EIR
determined that the potential for conflict was greater than could be rectified by the proposed design
components of the proposed project and a potentially significant land use incompatibility would
remain without further mitigation. To reduce these potential incompatibility impacts below a
significant level,the EIR identifies the following mitigation measures that will be implemented under
the City of Palm Springs oversight:
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
4.2.4A The following measures shall be implemented throughout demolition and construction activities in
order to reduce emissions.
• All required emission control devices shall be affixed to and operational on gasoline
and diesel construction equipment
• Construction equipment engines shall be maintained by keeping them properly tuned.
• Prohibit Idling and other unnecessary operation of equipment.
• Utilize existing power sources (i.e.,temporary power poles)and avoid onsite power
generation. If onsite power generation is required, natural gas or LPG/CNG fueled
generators shall be used,unless the contractor demonstrates that such units are not
available.
Have sufficient equipment at the site to carry out dust-control measures in all areas
covered by the contract work(not just the immediate area of construction).
• Employ construction activity management techniques to minimize daily construction
activity emissions,such as: configuring the construction parking to minimize traffic
interference; extending the construction period; reducing the number of pieces of
equipment used simultaneously; increasing the distance between the emission
sources;and reducing or changing the hours of construction.
• Maintain all work and access areas free from accumulated dust
• Require loaded trucks used in construction operations to be covered with tarpaulins
when they leave the site. Loaded trucks onsite shall be covered or maintain at least
2 feet of freeload.
• Trucks and tires shall be washed off before leaving the site.
Sweep streets with state-of-the-art street sweeper(as approved by SCAQMD)if dust
is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares.
• Water dust-generating surfaces at intervals to keep all parts of the disturbed area
continuously damp, i.e., 12%minimum moisture content
• Water all disturbed areas of the site that can generate fugitive dust and clean the
equipment in the morning and evening.
-29-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
Construction operations affecting offsite roadways shall be scheduled for off peak
traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes,particularly when
extending the 12-inch irrigation pipeline through the adjacent neighborhood.
• Construction activities should be scheduled to occur firston the upwind portion of the
project site to reduce the potential for winds and related fugitive dust impacts in the
downwind areas.
• Develop atraffic plan to minimizetraffic flow interference from construction activities,
including advance public notice of routing.
Use low VOC asphalt and coatings.
4.2.4.2 The proposed project shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code(see Appendix A)which establishes minimum requirements for construction activities to reduce
fugitive dust and PMI,emissions. A plan to control fugitive dustthrough implementation of reasonably
available dust control measures shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palm Springs for
approval priorto the Issuance of any grading permits associated with the project The plan shall specify
the fugitive dust control measures,Including,at a minimum,those measures listed In this EIR.
4.2.4.3 The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. In particular,
SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to,Insuring the clean up of construction-related dirt on approach
routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation,
open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source.
Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited.
4.2.4.4 A suitable dust control fee deposit as determined by the Building Official shall be required and made
prior to grading or demolition permit issuance.
4.2.4.5 Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the
disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be
installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind erosion of the soil.
4.2.4.6 Any construction access roads(otherthan temporary access roads)shall be paved as soon as possible
and cleaned after each workday. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved roads shall be 15 mph
on the project site.
4.2.4.7 Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when wind
gusts exceed 25 mph at the Palm Springs Airport,per the PM,SIP.
4.2.4.8 Any construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with
a maximum of 0.05%sulfur and a four degree retard.
4.2.4.12 If construction equipment powered by alternative fuels sources(LPG/CNG)is available at reasonable
cost,the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the
project site. This will require a positive demonstration from the construction contractor that such
equipment is not available.
4.2.4.13 The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment,unless the
construction contractor makes a positive demonstration that equipmentwith such filters is not available
or is uneconomic and noncompetitive for use with this project
4.2.4.14 Due to the age of the structure,there is a high probability that it will contain asbestos. Thus, prior to
demolition,all asbestos must be removed in accordance with the performance standards contained in
SCAQMD Regulation X, Subpart M,as amended through August 13, 1999.
Noise Mitigation Measures
-30-
t �S33
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
4.3.4.1 All construction vehicles or equipment fixed or mobile operated shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
4.3.4.2 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from residential homes.
4.3.4.3 The noisiest operations shall be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid
continuing periods of greater annoyance.
4.3.4.4 The developer shall establish a noise complaint response program in cooperation with the City for this
project during construction. The City shall be given a noise complaint phone number and it shall be
advertised in signs on the four sides of the project. If noise complaints are received,the developer shall
immediately meet with the complainant and identify actions that will reduce the noise to acceptable
levels,either through limiting hours of the activity or installing portable noise barriers that reduce such
noise to no greater than 75 dBA at the property boundary.
4.3.4.5 Truck deliveries and loading dock operation impacts can be partially mitigated by construction of a wall
(noise barrier)sufficiently high along the west and north sides of the project site. The existing 6-foot
wall Is not adequate for this purpose. A wall of 10-12 feet high above ground is recommended along
the north boundary starting at the northeast property comer and extending east to the shops that are
proposed along the north property line.
4.3.4.6 Trucks should not stop In the areas between the new stores and the apartments with engines or
refrigeration units running.
4.3.4.7 Signs should be posted advising drivers of these requirements.
4.3.4.8 Public address(P.A.)systems should not be used by the stores.
4.3.4.9 HVAC equipment shall be located on rooftops so as not to be visible from apartments,including upper
floor units,which could reduce noise levels. Parapets along the outer roof lines and individual screens
around HVAC units are recommended.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce land use incompatibility impacts below a
significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures
have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City in its role as land use
management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has
no potential to contribute to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on land use
compatibility issues after mitigation is implemented; that project specific and cumulative land use
compatibility impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the project
specific and cumulative land use compatibility impacts are considered nonsignificant after
mitigation.
E.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
E.3.b Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving: Seismic ground shaking?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could be
exposed to significant seismic ground shaking effects, but available mitigation can
reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
-31-
l � 3y
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Facts Supporting Finding
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The project
site is within an active seismic area with a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault
generating ground shaking atthe site with peak accelerations of about 0.4g(gravitational constant).
The City will require the new structures to be designed to withstand the ground shaking from an
event of this size by complying with the Uniform Building Code. Since this is a mandatory City
requirement, no specific mitigation measure was required to be implemented in either the Initial
Study or Final EIR to ensure that future shoppers and structures would be adequate protected from
significant ground shaking hazards.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mandatory UBC design requirements are sufficient to reduce ground shaking impacts at
the project site and for the proposed uses below a significant level. Based on these facts,the City
concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be
implemented by the City in its role as land use management agency for the proposed project. The
City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute to significant project specific
or cumulative adverse effects on exposure of structures and future shoppers to ground shaking
impacts issues after mitigation is implemented;that project specific and cumulative ground shaking
impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the project specific and
cumulative ground shaking impacts are considered nonsignificant after implementing UBC design
requirements for the proposed project.
EA WATER
EA.b Potential Effect: Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could be
exposed to significant water related flood hazards, but available mitigation can
reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Su000rting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: A portion
of the project site (southeasterly quarter) was determined to be located within a "Zone B" flood
hazard area with potential exposure to 100-year flooding with an average depth of less than one
foot. To overcome this potential hazard impact and reduce it to below a significant level, the EIR
identifies the following mitigation measure that will be implemented under the City of Palm Springs
oversight:
Water Mitigation Measure
4.b.1 Building pad heights shall be raised a minimum of one-foot above natural grade,as determined by the
Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, to address potential flooding concerns
associated with development of the property.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
-32-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
available mitigation measure is sufficient to reduce flood hazard impact at the project site below
a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures
have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City in its role as land use
management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has
no potential to contribute to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on exposure
of structures and future shoppers to significant flood hazards after mitigation is implemented; that
project specific and cumulative flood hazards on the project site have been substantially lessened
to a nonsignificant level; and that the project specific and cumulative flood hazards are considered
nonsignificant after mitigation.
EA.c Potential Effect: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
cause discharge of pollutants to surface waters that would significantly alter surface
water quality, but available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of
nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The project
site is approximately 10 acres in size and during construction and operation it could release
pollutants that could significantly degrade surface water quality. The City will require the site
developer to incorporate best management practices to control the degradation of surface runoff
from onsite pollutants both during construction and during operations. This will be achieved
through complying with requirements to file a Notice of Intent, to implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan for the site and to control degradation of any future storm runoff from the
site in accordance with existing City requirements which are considered sufficient to reduce surface
water quality degradation to a nonsignificant level. Since these are mandatory requirements by the
City and State, no specific mitigation measure was required to be implemented in either the Initial
Study or Final EIR to ensure that future surface water quality would not incur significant
degradation from implementing the proposed project.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available surface water quality management requirements are sufficient to reduce water quality
degradation at the project site below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes
that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented
by the City in its role as land use management agency for the proposed project. The City
concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute to significant project specific or
cumulative adverse effects on surface water quality after mitigation is implemented; that project
specific and cumulative water quality degradation impacts have been substantially lessened to a
nonsignificant level; and that the project specific and cumulative surface water quality impacts are
considered nonsignificant after implementing best management practices requirements for the
proposed project.
E.4.h Potential Effect: Support these impacts to groundwater quality?
-33-
it 3G
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
cause discharge of pollutants to surface waters that could eventually would
significantly alter groundwater quality, but available mitigation can reduce this
impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The project
site is approximately 10 acres in size and during construction and operation it could release
pollutants that could significantly degrade surface water quality. The City will require the site
developer to incorporate best management practices to control the degradation of surface runoff
from onsite pollutants both during construction and during operations. This will be achieved
through complying with requirements to file a Notice of Intent, to implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan for the site and to control degradation of any future storm runoff from the
site in accordance with existing City requirements which are considered sufficientto reduce surface
water quality degradation to a nonsignificant level. Since these are mandatory requirements by the
City and State, no specific mitigation measure was required to be implemented in either the Initial
Study or Final EIR to ensure that future surface water quality would not incur significant
degradation from implementing the proposed project. By controlling surface water quality
degradation to a nonsignificant level of impact, groundwater quality can not be degraded by a
significant amount because the only connection between the project site and groundwater quality
is the discharge of surface water.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available surface water quality management requirements are sufficient to reduce groundwater
quality degradation at the project site below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City
concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be
implemented by the City in its role as land use management agency for the proposed project. The
City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute to significant project specific
or cumulative adverse effects on groundwater quality after mitigation is implemented;that project
specific and cumulative groundwater quality degradation impacts have been substantially lessened
to a nonsignificant level; and that the project specific and cumulative groundwater quality impacts
are considered nonsignificant after implementing best management practices requirements forthe
proposed project.
E.4.i Potential Effect: Are there any on-site or proposed wells?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
adversely impact the existing Desert Water Agency(DWA)well on the project site,
but available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding_
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: Desert
Water Agency has an existing operating water production well on the project site. This important
-34- I
1 AY7
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Sprin s Statement of Facts and Findin s
water production facility could be adversely impacted by onsite traffic or other related activities
during future construction and operation of the shopping center. To overcome this potential impact
and reduce it to below a significant level, the EIR identifies the following mitigation measures that
will be implemented under the City of Palm Springs oversight:
Water Facility Mitigation Measures
4.j.1 The Contractor shall protect the existing well site surrounded by this project and will not encroach or
disturb the fenced well site during construction. Additionally,the contractor will assure continuous
access to the well site.
4.j.2 Design features of the project will ensure security of the well site from public access,as well as allow
appropriate access to the well site and associated physical features to water agency personnel.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce potential impact to the existing DWA well on
the property below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible
mitigation measures have been identified and these measures Will be implemented by the City in
its role as land use management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the
proposed project has no potential to contribute to significant project specific adverse effects on the
existing well after mitigation is implemented;that project specific impact to the well on the project
site have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the project specific impacts
to the well are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.5 AIR QUALITY
E.5.a Potential Effect: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation during construction?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
generate significant air emissions during construction of the proposed shopping
center, but available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding_
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: Imple-
mentation of the proposed project will generate air pollutant emissions during construction. During
construction, emissions will be caused by demolishing about 42,000 square feet of buildings,
constructing approximately 104,126 square feet of new retail space, and operating the shopping
center with a major grocery store and drug store as its anchor tenants. The evaluation of
demolition activities demonstrated that demolition of about 764,000 cubic feet of structure falls far
below the quarterly threshold of demolition which is identified in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" as being 357,138 cubic feet per day and
23,214,000 square feet per quarter(See Table 4.2.3 of the EIR). Based on this comparison with
Handbook thresholds, the proposed project was determined not to pose any significant air quality
emissions during demolition without any mitigation.
-35-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Sprinrys Statement of Facts and Findin s
Grading the project site, about 9.9 acres, falls so far below the Handbook threshold of 177 acres,
that this activity was concluded to pose a nonsignificant level of impact on air quality. Finally, the
proposed project envisions constructing about 104,00 square feet of new space over a several
month period, and the comparable threshold in the Handbook for a quarter is 975,000 square feet.
Based on these data,the proposed project's potential air quality impacts during construction were
identified as falling below the screening thresholds. No potential for new violations of standards
or contributions to existing violations, is forecast to occur during construction of the proposed
project. However, a potential exists to expose adjacent residences in this urban location to
potentially significant pollutants. To overcome this potential impact and reduce it to below a
significant level,the EIR identifies the following mitigation measures that will be implemented under
the City of Palm Springs oversight:
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
4.2.4.1 The following measures shall be Implemented throughout demolition and construction activities in
order to reduce emissions.
• All required emission control devices shall be affixed to and operational on gasoline
and diesel construction equipment
• Construction equipment engines shall be maintained by keeping them properly tuned.
• Prohibit idling and other unnecessary operation of equipment
• Utilize existing power sources(i.e.,temporary power poles)and avoid onsite power
generation. If onsite power generation is required, natural gas or LPG/CNG fueled
generators shall be used,unless the contractor demonstrates that such units are not
available.
• Have sufficient equipment at the site to carry out dust-control measures in all areas
covered by the contract work(not just the immediate area of construction).
Employ construction activity management techniques to minimize daily construction
activity emissions,such as:configuring the construction parking to minimize traffic
interference; extending the construction period; reducing the number of pieces of
equipment used simultaneously; increasing the distance between the emission
sources;and reducing or changing the hours of construction.
• Maintain all work and access areas free from accumulated dust.
• Require loaded trucks used in construction operations to be covered with tarpaulins
when they leave the site. Loaded trucks onsite shall be covered or maintain at least
2 feet of freeload.
• Trucks and tires shall be washed off before leaving the site.
• Sweep streets with state-of-the-art street sweeper(as approved by SCAQMD)if dust
is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares.
Water dust-generating surfaces at Intervals to keep all parts of the disturbed area
continuously damp,i.e., 12%minimum moisture content.
• Water all disturbed areas of the site that can generate fugitive dust and clean the
equipment in the morning and evening.
-36-
!� 39
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5,0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
• Construction operations affecting offsite roadways shall be scheduled for off peak
traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes,particularly when
extending the 12-inch irrigation pipeline through the adjacent neighborhood.
• Construction activities should be scheduled to occurfirst on the upwind portion of the
project site to reduce the potential for winds and related fugitive dust impacts in the
downwind areas.
• Develop atraffic plan to minimizetraffic flow interference from construction activities,
including advance public notice of routing.
Use low VOC asphalt and coatings.
4.2.4.2 The proposed project shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code(see Appendix A)which establishes minimum requirements for construction activities to reduce
fugitive dust and PM,emissions. A plan to control fugitive dustthrough implementation of reasonably
available dust control measures shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palm Springs for
approval priorto the Issuance of any grading permits associated with the project The plan shall specify
the fugitive dust control measures,including,at a minimum,those measures listed in this EIR.
4.2.4.3 The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. In particular,
SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to,insuring the clean up of construction-related dirt on approach
routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation,
open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source.
Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited.
4.2.4.4 A suitable dust control fee deposit as determined by the Building Official shall be required and made
prior to grading or demolition permit issuance.
4.2.4.5 Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the
disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be
installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind erosion of the soil.
4.2.4.6 Any construction access roads(otherthan temporary access roads)shall be paved as soon as possible
and cleaned after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved roads shall be 15 mph
on the project site.
4.2.4.7 Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when wind
gusts exceed 25 mph at the Palm Springs Airport,per the PM,,SIP.
4.2.4.8 Any construction equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with
a maximum of 0.05%sulfur and a four degree retard.
4.2.4.9 The construction contractorshall establish a ride-sharing and mass transit use incentive program and
all personnel shall be informed of ride sharing opportunities.
4.2.4.10 Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California
Administration Code.
4.2.4.11 The construction contractor shall utilize,to the maximum extent feasible, precoated/natural colored
building materials,water based or low VOC coating,and coating transferor spray equipment with high
transfer efficiency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings
application such as paint brush,hand roller,trowel,spatula,dauber, rag,or sponge.
4.2.4.12 If construction equipment powered by alternative fuels sources (LPG/CNG)is available at reasonable
cost,the developer shall specify that such equipment be used during all construction activities on the
project site. This will require a positive demonstration from the construction contractor that such
equipment is not available.
-37-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
4.2.4.13 The developer shall require the use of particulate filters on diesel construction equipment,unless the
construction contractor makes a positive demonstration that equipment with such filters is not available
or is uneconomic and noncompetitive for use with this project.
4.2.4.14 Due to the age of the structure,there is a high probability that it will contain asbestos. Thus,prior to
demolition,all asbestos must be removed in accordance with the performance standards contained in
SCAQMD Regulation X,Subpart M,as amended through August 13, 1999.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce construction impacts to air quality below a
significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures
have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City in its role as land use
management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has
no potential to contribute to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on air quality
during construction after mitigation is implemented;that project specific and cumulative air quality
impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the project specific and
cumulative air quality impacts are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.S.a Potential Effect: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation during operations?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
generate significant air emissions during operation of the proposed shopping center,
but the combination of available mitigation and compliance with the adopted air
quality plans can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding•
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding:
Implementation of the proposed project will generate air pollutant emissions during operation.
During operation, emissions will be caused by mobile sources accessing the project site; and
emissions related to energy consumption, both onsite and offsite. The operational emissions were
estimated to be the following based on the number of daily vehicle trips and energy consumption:
carbon monoxide= 1,123.8 Ibs/day; reactive organic compounds= 113.6 Ibs/day; nitrogen oxides
=47.7 Ibs/day; particulate matter (PM10) = 15.4 Ibs/day; and sulfur oxides = 1.3 Ibs/day. Two of
these values, carbon monoxide and reactive organic compounds were identified as exceeding the
Handbook thresholds for operations. However, after careful review of this project and its location,
the City concluded that the project emissions would not be significant, as outlined in detail in
Section 4.2.6 of the EIR, for the following reasons.
a. Even without the implementation of the proposed project, emissions will occur as a result
of shoppers going to some location within the general project vicinity to obtain the goods
and services that will be provided by the proposed project. The provision of a commercial
shopping center at this location will reduce travel distances for all residents of the proposed
project and the adjacent suburban development which exists in this portion of the City of
Palm Springs.
-38- y
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
b. This development is within the urbanized portion of the City of Palm Springs. Not only is
it an infill development, it is the redevelopment of an existing deteriorated shopping center
which is not as attractive to community residents. By enhancing its use by local shoppers,
overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the community can be reduced relative to
existing VMT.
C. With expanded retail commercial services at the proposed shopping center, an individual
will be able to reduce the number of trips overall to meet daily shopping and service needs.
Thus, emissions would be reduced by the shopping center relative to the use of individual
shopping facilities which are currently used in place of this shopping center. The City
General Plan concentrates commercial retail, commercial office and related uses at one
spot for this portion of the City and existing and future development will be served by this
commercial node. As a result, overall trip generation (as a result of adjacent multi-family
development) and vehicle miles will be further reduced by this project.
d. The project site is located at the intersection of two of the major arterials within the City,
Ramon Road and Sunrise Way. Bus transit service is available along both roadways
directly adjacent to the project site. Mass transit facilities exist and will be enhanced as part
of the proposed project. With such good transit access and the provision of good
pedestrian and bicycle access to the site, the number of motor vehicle trips can be
substantially reduced.
e. This project is forecast to generate approximately 230jobs,approximately 120 ofthesejobs
will be new. The jobs/housing balance of the City will be enhanced as a result of providing
these jobs that can range from semi-skilled to skilled positions. Further, the mitigation
measures identified above effectively reduce the air pollutant emissions in a manner fully
consistent with these planning documents.
This project fully conforms with and implements the principle concepts(betterjobs/housing balance
and reductions in vehicle miles traveled) contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's Air Quality Management Plan and Souther California Association of Government's
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. For the above reasons the City of Palm Springs
concludes that the air emissions associated with this project would be fully consistent with regional
air quality planning guidelines, and with the applicable air quality management plans. Further,
these air quality planning documents forecast that clean air standards will be met as long a planned
growth conforms with the goals and policies of these plans. With the implementation of the
following mitigation measure, the proposed project's air quality impacts can be reduced to a less
than significant.
Air Quality Mitigation Measure
4.2.4.15 The following measures shall be implemented in orderto reduce the project operational impacts. The
percent reduction for each measure is provided.
• Trips reduction by good transit infrastructure measures. 15%
• Trips reduction by pedestrian enhancing infrastructure measures
for residential and non-residential. 2%
• Trips reduction by bicycle enhancing infrastructure measures for
residential and non-residential. 7%
• Install preferential parking spaces for employees that participate in
rideshare or alternative transportation programs to reduce vmt. -
• Improve traffic Flow at driveAhroughs by requiring separate windows
-39-
1 i6 y�k.
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
for different functions and by providing temporary parking for orders
not immediately ready for pick-up.
• Establish resident worker training programs to improve jobs/housing
balance.
• In cooperation with the local transit company, install an onsite bus
turnout. 2%
• Require truck deliveries and collections to be scheduled during off-
peak hours for traffic flow. -
• Provide a kiosk with commuter and mass transit information on the
premises or in association with the bus stop.
• Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.2-1.5 average vehicle
ridership for this multi-tenant work site,including incentives,such
as discounts for transit riders, bicycle parking facilities(lockers or
racks),and preferential parking areas for ridesharing employees.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measure, in conjunction with complying with air quality management plans, is
sufficient to reduce operational impacts to air quality below a significant level. Based on these
facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these
measures will be implemented by the City in its role as land use management agency for the
proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute to
significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on air quality during operations after
mitigation is implemented; that project specific and cumulative air quality impacts have been
substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level; and that the project specific and cumulative air
quality impacts are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.S.b Potential Effect: Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
generate significant air emissions and expose sensitive receptors to air pollutants
during construction and operation of the proposed shopping center, but the
combination of available mitigation and compliance with the adopted air quality
plans can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: Please refer
to the analysis under issues E.5.a construction and E.5.a operations presented in detail above.
The potential impacts and the mitigation measures are the same for this issue. Further,the imple-
mentation of the proposed mitigation measures outlined above will reduce potential air quality
impacts during both construction and operations to a level of nonsignificance.
E.6 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
E.6.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in: Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by
the project? (Average weekday trip ends per 100,000 gross leaseable area - Rate 74.31; Volume:
7,431).
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
-40-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Find/n s
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
generate a significant number of daily trips on the local circulation system, but
available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The traffic
study prepared by Albert Grover and Associates indicated that the proposed project would generate
an estimated 7,587 trips per day, about 5,573 trips greater than the existing shopping center
(2,014). The afternoon peak hour would experience 1,040 trips,with 530 trips in and 510 trips out.
Based on this number of trips, it was determined that traffic system impact (level of service, LOS)
would remain at LOS C during the opening year of the project, but cumulative long term impact,
year 2010, would reduce the Ramon/Sunrise intersection to LOS D. The proposed project was
identified as constituting 3% of the increased traffic volume at this intersection. This impact is
considered to be a cumulative significant impact to the circulation system. With the implementation
of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project's transportation impacts related to trip
generation can be reduced to a less than significant.
Transportation/Circulation Mitigation Measures
6.a.1 The driveway approach on Sunrise Way shall have two exit lanes, designed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
6.a.2 The main(easternmost)driveway on Ramon Road shall have two exit lanes,to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
6.a.3 Driveways on Ramon Road in the future may need to be signalized or restricted to right turn out only,
with a left turn into the project also acceptable for both driveways on Ramon Road (See Condition
No. 66).
6.a.4 The driveway on Sunrise Way shall incorporate movements from the existing driveway on the east side
of Sunrise Way,serving the Mizell Senior Center and the Boys and Girls Club.
6.a.5 The developer shall pay their fair share for the widening of Sunrise Way @ Ramon Road intersection
for the future Installation of double left-turn lanes at the Sunrise Way/Ramon Road intersection.
6.a.6 Signal timing shall be verified to ensure thattiming corresponds with HCS worksheets included within
the Traffic Study,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Minor timing modifications may be necessary
prior to completion of the project,as determined by the City Engineer;
6.a.7 The final design of the on-site parking lot and site driveways shall be subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building to insure compliance with City access
and design standards;
6.a.8 STOP signs shall be installed to control exiting site traffic and clear unobstructed sight distances shall
be provided at all driveways,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
6.a.9 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund(TUMF)fees shall be paid upon issuance of individual building
permits for the proposed project.
6.a.10 The project shall comply with the City of Palm Springs Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Ordinance which establishes transportation demand management requirements for the City of Palm
Springs. Refer to Chapter 8.4 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. A TDM plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the supermarket.
-41-
r 06 yy
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
6.a.11 The developer shall construct a 14-foot wide landscaped,raised median island as specified by the City
Engineer on Ramon Road from Sunrise Way South to the west property line which shall include an
acceleration and deceleration lane for left turns in and out of the center from the main drive. A left turn
pocket shall be provided on the west side of the Sunrise Way South at Ramon Road East intersection.
The nose width shall be 4 feet wide and shall have stone cobbles to the point where the landscaping
can begin.The length of the turn pockets shall be determined per Caltrans Highway Design Manual Sec.
405 and be approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall landscape the raised median island
along the Ramon Road frontage as specified by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce transportation impacts below a significant
level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been
identified and these measures will be implemented by the City in its role as land use management
agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has no potential
to contribute to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on the transportation
system after mitigation is implemented;that project specific and cumulative transportation system
impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the project specific and
cumulative transportation system impacts are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.6.b Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips ortraffic congestion?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
generate significant traffic trips during operation of the proposed shopping center,
but the available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: Please refer
to the analysis under issues E.6.a presented in detail above. The potential impacts and the
mitigation measures are the same for this issue, E.6.b. Further, the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures outlined above will reduce potential transportation system and traffic
congestion impacts to a level of nonsignificance.
E.6.c Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in: Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could pose
significant traffic hazards during operation of the proposed shopping center, but the
available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The
proposed project design contains three drive approaches, compared to eight for the existing
shopping center. The new layout significantly reduces the potential for vehicular and pedestrian
-42-
/i3Ys-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
related traffic conflicts. Further, the design establishes a sufficient distance between the nearest
drive approach and the Gallery Apartments' existing driveway which further minimizes turning
conflicts. However, the overall flow of traffic onto the project site poses significant impacts that
require additional mitigation. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the
proposed project's traffic flow hazards can be reduced to less than significant.
Traffic/Circulation Mitigation Measures
6.c.1 Leftturns out of the westernmost driveway on Ramon Road shall be prohibited to address traffic related
issues associated with the relationship of said driveway with the adjacent driveway to the west,serving
the Gallery Apartments.
6.c.2 Truck deliveries for the Ralph's Supermarket shall be primarily from westbound Ramon Road, to
minimize any potential impacts on turning movements from the above-referenced Gallery Apartments
driveway.
6.c.3 The contractor shall protect the existing well site surrounded by this project and will not encroach to
disturb the fenced well site area during construction.Additionally,the contractorwill assure continuous
access to the well site,to the satisfaction of the DWA and the City.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce traffic hazards below a significant level.
Based on these facts,the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified
and these measures will be implemented by the City in its role as land use management agency
for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to
contribute to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on the traffic hazards after
mitigation is implemented; that project specific and cumulative traffic hazards have been
substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level; and that the project specific and cumulative traffic
hazard are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.6.d Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in: Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could pose
significant emergency access and access to nearby uses hazards during operation
of the proposed shopping center,but the available mitigation can reduce this impact
to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: Please refer
to the analysis under issues E.6.c presented in detail above. The potential impacts and the
mitigation measures are the same for this issue, E.6.d. Further, the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures outlined above will reduce potential emergency access and access
to nearby use impacts to a level of nonsignificance.
E.6.e Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in: Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
-43-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project may not
provide sufficient parking and inadequate parking capacity could cause a significant
adverse effect during future shopping center operations,but the available mitigation
can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The project
is required to provide 418 parking spaces and is currently providing 374 parking spaces. A parking
reduction of this amount (32 spaces) is permitted in the City, but the Initial Study concluded that
additional measures would be required to mitigation this impact. The developer has committed to
restrict employee parking forthe supermarket to the north side of the building leaving the main field
of parking available to shopping center patrons. Also, part of the loss in parking spaces is caused
by inclusion of on-site landscape and patio areas. With the implementation of the following
mitigation measure,the proposed project's potentially significant parking impacts can be reduced
to a less than significant impact.
Trafric/Circulation Mitigation Measure
6.e.1 The developer will be required to look at site plan design alternatives where the proposed square
footage of the buildings balances with the amount of required parking forthe project,while maintaining
the amount of landscaped area and complying with all on-site circulation criteria. Alternatives to
balancing on-site parking with building area includes significantly upgrading the quality and quantity
of pedestrian"nodes"and the pedestrian circulation system throughoutthe project,to the satisfaction
of the Planning Commission and City Council.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measure is sufficient to reduce traffic hazards below a significant level. Based
on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and
this measure will be implemented by the City in its role as land use management agency for the
proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute to
significant project specific effects on the parking impacts after mitigation is implemented; that
project specific parking impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that
the project specific parking impacts are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.9 HAZARDS
E.9.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal: Be a risk or accidental explosion or release
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
cause the accidental release of petroleum products during demolition and con-
struction with significant adverse consequences,but available mitigation can reduce
this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
-44-
1 ✓ Y*7
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: During
demolition and construction petroleum products are utilized in equipment and a potential exists for
accidental releases during fueling or use of this equipment. With the implementation of the
following mitigation measure,the proposed project's potentially significant accidental hazards can
be reduced to a less than significant impact.
Hazards Mitigation Measure
9.a.1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities shall be remediated in
compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the
contaminant released. The contaminated waste shall be collected and disposed of at an appropriately
licensed disposal or treatment facility.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measure is sufficient to reduce hazards from accidental release of substances
below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation
measures have been identified and this measure will be implemented by the City in its role as land
use management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed project
has no potential to contribute to significant project specific effects on the accidental hazard impacts
after mitigation is implemented; that project specific accidental hazard impacts have been
substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level; and that the project specific accidental hazard
impacts are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.10 NOISE
E.10.a Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in: Increases in existing noise levels?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
cause significant increases in the existing noise levels that could affect adjacent
residences, but available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of non-
significance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: A site-
specific noise study was prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. (BBA) which identified
potentially significant construction noise impacts and potentially significant operational impacts.
The study determined that the background sound levels at the adjacent multi-family residences
already exceeds the City's established noise thresholds. Therefore, additional noise significance
thresholds were developed and presented on page 4-30 of the EIR. During construction activities
demolition was forecast to cause short-term noise levels of up to 78 dB at the nearest sensitive
receptors and construction activities could reach 90 dB at the nearest residences. City policies
identify construction noise impacts as a "nuisance" with the implementation of noise control
measures specified in Municipal Code Sections 11.74.041 and 8.04.220. Additional construction
noise mitigation measures are identified in the EIR and with the implementation of these mitigation
measures,the proposed project's potentially significant construction noise impacts can be reduced
to a less than significant impact.
-45-
/� Y8
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
A detailed evaluation of operational noise was conducted by BBA. The evaluation of traffic noise
demonstrated that the proposed project impacts would not cause a significant change in
background traffic noise levels (Table 4.3-1) relative to the residential sensitive noise receptors
adjacent to the project site. Evaluations of truck noise impacts (Table 4.3-2) and loading dock
(Table 4.3-3) noise impacts demonstrated that the latter noise generating activity (loading dock
operations) would not result in a significant increase in noise at the nearby sensitive receptors.
However, noise impacts due to truck delivery activities could result in significant short-term noise
impacts on a daily basis. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed
project's potentially significant operational noise impacts can be reduced to a less than significant
impact.
The following measure is a mandatory component of the City's Noise Ordinance. It is presented
for information only since it is a mandatory requirement for construction in the City and is not a
mitigation measure.
Construction equipment activities are limited to the period between 7 a.m.and 8 p.m.(Section 11.74.041). The
Construction Site Regulations (Chapter 8.04.200) also identify specific limits on hours of operation for
construction equipment as not between 5 p.m.and 8 a.m.if the noise produced is of such intensity or quality
that it disturbs the peace and quiet of any other person of normal sensitivity.
Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
4.3.4.1 All construction vehicles or equipment fixed or mobile operated shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
4.3.4.2 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from residential homes.
4.3.4.3 The noisiest operations shall be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid
continuing periods of greater annoyance.
4.3.4.4 The developer shall establish a noise complaint response program in cooperation with the City for this
project during construction. The City shall be given a noise complaint phone number and it shall be
advertised in signs on the four sides of the project If noise complaints are received,the developer shall
immediately meet with the complainant and identify actions that will reduce the noise to acceptable
levels,either through limiting hours of the activity orinstalling portable noise barriers that reduce such
noise to no greater than 75 dBA at the property boundary.
Operational Noise Mitigation Measures
4.3.4.5 Truck deliveries and loading dock operation impacts can be partially mitigated by construction of a wall
(noise barrier)sufficiently high along the west and north sides of the project site. The existing 6-foot
wall is not adequate for this purpose. A wall of 10-12 feet high above ground is recommended along
the north boundary starting at the northeast property comer and extending east to the shops that are
proposed along the north property line.
4.3.4.6 Trucks should not stop In the areas between the new stores and the apartments with engines or
refrigeration units running.
4.3.4.7 Signs should be posted advising drivers of these requirements.
4.3.4.8 Public address (P.A.)systems should not be used by the stores.
4.3.4.9 HVAC equipment shall be located on rooftops so as not to be visible from apartments,including upper
floor units,which could reduce noise levels. Parapets along the outer roof lines and individual screens
around HVAC units are recommended.
-46-
1 �✓ y9
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce construction and operational noise impacts
below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation
measures have been identified and this measure will be implemented by the City in its role as land
use management agency for the proposed project. Note that the City Noise Ordinance contains
extensive additional policies to control adverse noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. See
page 4-37 of the EIR. The City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute
to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects on noise environment during
construction and operations after mitigation is implemented; that project specific and cumulative
noise environment impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level; and that the
project specific and cumulative noise environment impacts are considered nonsignificant after
mitigation. Also note,the City may not require installation of a 10-foot high sound attenuation wall
for aesthetic and safety reasons. If a wall of less than 10 feet in height is approved, noise impacts
would be considered significant. This issue is addressed in the next section of this document.
E.10.b Potential Effect: Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
generate significant noise emissions and expose sensitive receptors to severe noise
levels during construction of the proposed shopping center, but the available
mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Findim
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: Please refer
to the analysis under issues E.10.a construction presented in detail above. The potential impacts
and the mitigation measures are the same for this issue, E.10.b. Further, the implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures outlined above will reduce potential severe noise impacts during
construction to a level of nonsignificance.
E.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
EA 1.d Potential Effect: Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following areas? Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Findings: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project could
create significant demand formaintenance of public facilities,specifically the Desert
Water Agency (DWA) well on the project site, but the available mitigation can
reduce this impact to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study to support these findings: The project site
is located in the City's urban area and where the existing road system has been established for
-47-
/ 4 S V
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
many years. The new center will replace an existing center and will provide some improvements
to the local circulation system, including better ingress and egress design. All onsite circulation
systems will be maintained by the owners of the development. Therefore, the implementation of
the proposed project was not forecast to cause a significant effect on local roads within the City of
Palm Springs. Regarding the existing DWA well on the project site,the Initial Study concluded that
both during construction and operations a potential existed to damage this well and result in a
significant increase in maintenance requirements. With the implementation of these mitigation
measures, the proposed project's potentially significant impacts to DWA's well can be reduced to
a less than significant impact.
Public Facility Maintenance Mitigation Measures
11.d.1 The Contractor shall protect the existing well site surrounded by this project and will not encroach or
disturb the fenced well site area during construction. Additionally, the contractor will assure
continuous access to the site.
11.d.2 The well site will be appropriately secured from public access once the shopping center is operational.
Long-term access requirements forwateragency personnel will be met,including roadway,lighting and
security provisions.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
available mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce potential maintenance requirements at the
DWA well below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible
mitigation measures have been identified and this measure will be implemented by the City in its
role as land use management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the
proposed project has no potential to contribute to significant project specific effects on DWA well
maintenance requirements after mitigation is implemented; that project specific DWA well
maintenance requirements have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the
project specific DWAwell maintenance requirements are considered nonsignificant after mitigation.
E.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
E.12.c Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project would
require additional facilities to be extended to the site in orderto provide an adequate
supply of water, but available mitigation can reduce this impact to a level of non-
significance.
Facts Suaportino Finding•
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The Desert
Water Agency (DWA) submitted a letter indicating that the project site would require additional
facilities to adequately serve the site with irrigation, domestic and fire protection water. Since the
installation of these additional facilities is a mandatory DWA requirement, no specific mitigation
measure was required to be implemented in either the Initial Study or Final EIR to ensure that the
-48-
) A sb/
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
project site would receive adequate water to meet the above referenced water demands of the
project.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
mandatory DWA water facility requirements are sufficient to meet onsite water requirements of the
project site and reduce water facility impacts below a significant level. Based on these facts, the
City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will
be implemented by the City in its role as land use management agency for the proposed project.
The City concludes that the proposed project has no potential to contribute to significant project
specific or cumulative adverse effects regarding inadequate water supply impacts after mitigation
is implemented; that project specific and cumulative water supply impacts have been substantially
lessened to a nonsignificant level;and that the project specific and cumulative water supply impacts
are considered nonsignificant after implementing additional water facility requirements for the
proposed project.
E.12.f Potential Effect: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities: Storm water drainage?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The EIR and Initial Study contained the finding that the proposed project would
require encroachment permits and approval from the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District(District)before covering the Baristo Wash
Storm Channel on the project site, but available mitigation can reduce this impact
to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The District
submitted a letter indicating that the project site would require an encroachment permit and
approval before the developer can cover the channel and place parking area over the channel.
Since the acquisition of the encroachment permit and approval to coverthe channel are mandatory
District requirements, no specific mitigation measure was required to be implemented in eitherthe
Initial Study or Final EIR to ensure that the project would comply with these requirements.
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be
considered at this time. Therefore, consistent with the findings in the EIR, the City finds that the
mandatory District encroachment permit and approval requirements are sufficient to meet
protection of the onsite storm drainage facilities and reduce impacts to these facilities below a
significant level of impact. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation
measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City in its role as
land use management agency for the proposed project. The City concludes that the proposed
project has no potential to contribute to significant project specific or cumulative adverse effects
regarding storm drainage facility impacts after mitigation is implemented; that project specific and
cumulative storm drainage system impacts have been substantially lessened to a nonsignificant
level; and that the project specific and cumulative storm drainage system impacts are considered
nonsignificant after acquiring and complying with the encroachment permit and approval
requirements to covering the channel.
-49-
/� s- z
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
Based upon the findings presented in the Final EIR, the above described environmental issues
have been determined by the City to be: (1) adequately addressed in the Final EIR; and
(2) impacted to a degree deemed by the City to be less than significant with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified above and summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. No substantial evidence was subsequently presented to or identified by the City which
further modified or otherwise altered the City's less-than-significant with mitigation determination
for each of these environmental issues. This concludes the summary of environmental impacts
that were identified in the Final EIR and the Initial Study as nonsignificant impacts with mitigation
related to implementation of the proposed project
F. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE
FINAL PROJECT EIR THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
WHICH IS NOT SIGNIFICANT
The Cityfinds that despite the incorporation of extensive changes and alterations into the proposed
project, approving the implementation of the Ralphs/Sav-on Center project will possibly allow two
adverse environment impacts to remain unavoidably significant because these impacts can not be
mitigated to a nonsignificant level. These two unavoidable significant adverse environmental
impacts are historical resources and noise,if a minimum 10-foot high sound attenuation wall cannot
be constructed between the truck loading dock and the Gallery Apartments. These impacts and
the measures identified to minimize them to the extent feasible are summarized below.
The potentially significant impacts to historical resources and noise sensitive uses were concluded
to be significant based on the whole record which demonstrated that these impacts could not be
reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed project changes(alternatives, mitigation
measures, or design changes). Thus, despite the incorporation of all feasible changes or altera-
tions available to avoid significant effects of the proposed project outlined in the EIR, and
summarized below,the following impacts caused by the proposed project cannot be fully mitigated
to a level of insignificance and a statement of overriding consideration is thereby included herein,
in which specific economic, legal, social,technological or other considerations make infeasible the
reduction of project impacts to a nonsignificant level.
F.10 NOISE
As indicated in the text for Section E.10.a, the City may choose to limit the height of the noise
attenuation wall proposed to be located between the truck loading dock and the Gallery Apartments
to a maximum of 6-8 feet. The basis for this decision includes: compliance with existing
development code limits on height of walls; aesthetics; and safety. A 10-12 foot high wall could
pose a safety hazard due to limited area for footings that would be required for a wall of this height.
To address the option of a shorter wall, the following finding is included.
F.10 a Significant Unavoidable Impact: Would the proposal result in: Increases in existing noise
levels?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The noise impacts, mitigation measures, and the effectiveness of these measures
in reducing impacts are discussed in the Final EIR, Section 4.3. Even with imple-
mentation of the available mitigation measures outlined below,the project will result
in an increase in short term noise levels that will exceed the noise significance
-50-
/ Asoy
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
thresholds utilized in the EIR. Specific social, design,safety or other considerations
make infeasible additional mitigation measures to reduce projected noise impacts
to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding:
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: A site
specific noise study was prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. (BBA) which identified
potentially significant operational impacts. The study determined that the background sound levels
at the adjacent multi-family residences already exceeds the City's established noise thresholds.
Therefore, additional noise significance thresholds were developed and presented on page 4-30
of the EIR. Evaluations of truck noise impacts(Table 4.3-2)at the loading dock demonstrated that
truck delivery activities could result in significant short-term noise impacts on a daily basis. The
City finds that the following measure can substantially reduce the impact from this activity, but not
below a significant level of impact. This measure is:
Operational Noise Mitigation Measure
4.3.4.5 Truck deliveries and loading dock operation impacts can be partially mitigated by construction of a wall
(noise barrier)sufficiently high along the west and north sides of the project site. The existing 6-foot
wall is not adequate for this purpose. A wall of 6-8 feet high above ground is recommended along the
north boundary starting at the northeast property comer and extending east to the shops that are
proposed along the north property line.
The City further finds it is not possible to provide for full implementation of the proposed project
without causing the short-term significant noise impacts at adjacent residences during truck loading
activities. These impacts will not occur at night based on the implementation of other measures,
and the noise levels will not cause significant change in the overall background noise level.
However,they exceed the threshold of significance and may annoy residents during daylight hours
when truck loading activities occur. The City finds that no additional measures are known that can
further reduce this noise impact that will result from implementing the proposed project. Therefore,
the City concludes that the proposed project will contribute to unavoidable, significant adverse
noise effects if it is implemented.
F.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
F.14.c Significant Unavoidable Impact Would the proposal: Affect historic resources?
MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS:
Finding: The historical resource impacts,mitigation measures,and the effectiveness of these
measures in reducing impacts are discussed in the Final EIR, Section 4.4. Even
with implementation of the available mitigation measures outlined below,the project
will result in the unavoidable loss of structures that may be eligible for the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Specific economic, social,
or other considerations make infeasible additional mitigation measures to reduce
projected historical resource impacts to a level of nonsignificance.
Facts Supporting Finding_
-51-
�sy
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Sprinqs Statement of Facts and Findin s
The following facts were presented in the Initial Study and EIR to support this finding: The Alpha
Beta Shopping Center appears to meet the California Register because it represents the work of
a master, architect Albert Frey, in association with Robson Chambers. This finding is supported
by extensive information in the record, including public input and the DPR 523 form prepared for
the this project. This finding is made despite the fact that it is not yet 50 years of age, has
undergone some alterations and was not designated a Class 1 Historic Site by the Palm Springs
City Council. A detailed discussion of the character-defining features that qualify the Center as
possibly meeting California Register criteria is presented on pages 4-51 and 4-52 of the EIR.
Given its potential eligibility for the California Register, the proposed demolition of the Center will
result in the permanent, irreversible loss of the structures associated with Albert Frey. The City
finds that the following measure can substantially reduce the impact of this loss, but not below a
significant level of impact. This measure is:
Historical Resource Mitigation Measure
4.4.4.2 Archival documentation of the historical resource should be undertaken for those alternatives that
would result In a significant effect on the historical resource. Documentation similar to Historic
American Buildings Survey(HAGS)outline format narrative description of the property,contemporary
and historic photographs,and other relevant documentation shall be prepared by a historic consultant
approved by the City. The report shall be submitted for approval to the Planning&Building Director
of the City of Palm Springs, and an approved original deposited in the City of Palm Springs Public
Library(or other suitable repository)prior to issuance of the demolition permit for the subject property.
The City further finds it is not possible to provide for full implementation of the proposed project
without causing the loss of structures potentially eligible for the California Register. The City finds
that no additional measures are known that can further reduce the historical resource impacts that
will result from implementing the proposed project. Therefore,the City concludes that the proposed
project will contribute to unavoidable, significant adverse historical resource effects if it is
implemented.
Based upon the findings presented in the Final EIR, the above described environmental issues
have been determined by the City to be: (1) adequately addressed in the Final EIR; and
(2) impacted to a degree deemed by the City to be significant and unavoidable even after
implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and summarized in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. No substantial evidence was subsequently presented to or
identified by the City which further modified or otherwise altered the City's significant and
unavoidable impact finding with mitigation determined for each of these environmental issues.
This concludes the summary of environmental impacts that were identified in the Final EIR and the
Initial Study as unavoidable significant adverse impacts with mitigation related to implementation
of the proposed project.
G. FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT AS
IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR AND WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY
NOT IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of reasonable project
alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives(14 CCR§ 15126(d)). CEQA requires
that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project that: (1) offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project, and (2)
-52-
J /3 SSO
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable period of time
considering the economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors involved.
The basic objectives of the proposed project are outlined on page 4 of this document. The funda-
mental objectives are: to provide an attractive, high quality shopping center for local residents to
utilize for their daily shopping needs; to generate revenue sufficient to meet the City's design
requirements, including adequate infrastructure, and provide a positive return on investment; and
to provide comprehensive planning for the site to ensure orderly development consistent with the
City's General Plan. The objectives identified in the EIR must be fulfilled in order for an alternative
to provide a feasible and reasonable alternative to the proposed project.
The EIR for the Ralphs/Sav-on Center considered a total of seven alternatives to the proposed
action. These alternatives were defined based on mandatory requirements and alternatives
designed to reduce the identified significant impact of the project: historical resources. Based on
the project objectives referenced above, and input from the major anchor tenants at this shopping
center, none of the seven alternatives was considered to be technically feasible and they were
rejected from further consideration based on failure to meet the fundamental project objectives.
The seven alternatives that were subject to comparative evaluation in the EIR with the proposed
action are:
1. No Project, Alternative No. 1
2. Re-use Existing Building and Restoration of Original Site Plan Including Gas Station,
Alternative No. 2
3. New Retail Addition (East and North of Existing Building) and Rehabilitation of Existing
Building and Restoration of Original Site Plan, Including Gas Station, Alternative No. 3
4. Restoration and Reconstruction of Original Site Plan Including Preservation and Restoration
of Existing Building and Reconstruction of Original Gas Station, and New Addition To
Existing Building On Existing Property and Property to the West, Alternative No. 4
5. New Retail Construction (West of Drainage) and Moving of Existing Building to Western
Portion of Property Retaining Facades and/or Portions of Existing Building, Alternative
No. 5
6. Replace Existing Building and Design New Building on the West Side of the Site with
Elements Recalling the Historic Character, Alternative No. 6
7. Retain Existing Building,Alter Non Character-Defining Features, and Design New Building
on the West Side of the Site with Elements Recalling the Historic Character, Alternative
No. 7
The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is
capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even ifthese
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be
more costly"(State CEQA Guidelines,Section 15126(d)(3)). The following discussion summarizes
the EIR evaluation of each of these alternatives in determining whether they are feasible
alternatives to the proposed action (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)) and whether an
alternative can eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts described in this document for
the proposed action.
Alternative No. 1, No Project
-53- /� `
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
The no project alternative consists of no entitlements for development of the shopping center and
the retention of the project site in its current condition. This alternative does not address any
potential future project that could be proposed for development on the project site. The no project
alternative is based on the assumption that the proposed project is not implemented and for the
time being the project site remains in its current configuration.
The no project alternative would eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse
environmental impact, loss of buildings that appear to be eligible for the California Register of
Historic Places. It will allow existing operations and impacts to persist, but these impacts reflect
the current or existing condition of the property, not new adverse impacts. Because this alternative
eliminates the significant impacts forecast to result from the implementation of the proposed project
to a nonsignificant level, it is the environmentally superior alternative considered in this EIR.
However, the no project alternative would not meet the basic project objectives or General Plan
objectives established for this location by the City of Palm Springs. Since the no project alternative
cannot meet any of the basic objectives of the proposed project, it is not considered a feasible and
reasonable alternative to the proposed project. Therefore,the City concurs with the conclusion in
the EIR that the no project alternative for the proposed project was properly eliminated from further
detailed consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the project objectives.
Alternative No. 2, Re-Use Existing Building and Restoration of Original Site Plan Including
Gas Station
Alternative No. 2 proposes that the existing commercial structures and facilities remain on the
project site and original site plan be implemented, including the installation of a gas station
designed similar to the original station on the property. This alternative would be expected to add
additional traffic at the gas station and the storage and use of petroleum products normally
associated with service station operations.
Alternative No.2 would eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse environmental
impact, loss of buildings that appear to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places. It
will allow existing operations and impacts to persist,but these impacts reflect the current or existing
condition of the property, not new adverse impacts. The inclusion of the service station would
increase adverse impacts relative to the no project alternative, but based on the above analysis
Alternative No. 2 would not necessarily result in the creation of any new or additional significant
adverse environmental impacts. Because this alternative eliminates the significant impact forecast
to result from the implementation of the proposed project to a nonsignificant level, it is
environmentally superiorto the proposed project, but not environmentally superior to the no project
alternative.
Alternative No. 2 would not meet the basic project objectives or General Plan objectives
established for this location by the City of Palm Springs. Similar to the no project alternative, the
project objectives identified and discussed under the no project alternative would not be fulfilled by
Alternative No. 2 because the square footage of the super market would not be expanded and
insufficient square footage would be available for the range of uses identified by the proposed
project, including the Carl's Jr., the Sav-On drug store and retail space for other identified uses.
Since Alternative No. 2 cannot meet these basic objectives of the proposed project, it is not
considered a reasonable and feasible alternative to the proposed project. Therefore, the City
concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that Alternative No. 2 for the proposed project was properly
-54-
14 sq
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
eliminated from further detailed consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the project
objectives.
Alternative No. 3: New Retail Addition (East and North of Existing Building) and
Rehabilitation of Existing Building and Restoration of Original Site Plan, Including
Gas Station
Alternative No. 3 proposes that the existing commercial structures and facilities remain on the
project site and approximately 40,000 square feet of new structure be added to the Ralph's Store
on the north and east sides of the structure. The original site plan would be implemented, including
the installation of a gas station designed similar to the original station on the property. The
expanded square footage would result in a comparable level of development because it would
provide space for both the super market and the drug store. It would include a service station to
replicate the original site plan, but it would not include the fast food restaurants. This alternative
would be expected to add additional traffic at the gas station and the storage and use of petroleum
products normally associated with service station operations.
Alternative No. 3 would not eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse environ-
mental impact, loss of character-defining features of the buildings that appear to be eligible for the
California Register of Historic Places. This alternative will allow environmental impacts comparable
to that of the proposed project, with the addition of the service station environmental impacts
outlined under Alternative No. 2. The inclusion of the service station would increase adverse
impacts relative to the proposed project alternative. Regardless, based on the above analysis
Alternative No. 3 would not necessarily result in the creation of any new or additional significant
adverse environmental impacts. Because this alternative does not eliminate the significant impact
forecast to result from the implementation of the proposed project to a nonsignificant level, it is not
considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Alternative No. 3 was evaluated in Subchapter 4.4.3.6 as not meeting certain basic project
objectives or General Plan objectives established for this location by the City of Palm Springs. The
basic reasons for not meeting project objectives are presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the EIR and
in summary included: inadequate parking, one way drive aisles, inadequate truck delivery
circulation, and failure to meet the overall square footage objective to support an acceptable mix
of future retail uses. Therefore, the City concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that Alternative
No. 3 forthe proposed projectwas properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because
it is not capable of accomplishing the project objectives. Therefore, the City concurs with the
conclusion in the EIR that Alternative No. 3 for the proposed project was properly eliminated from
furtherdetailed consideration because itwill not reduce the potential significant impact on historical
resources and is not capable of accomplishing the project objectives.
Alternative No. 4: Restoration and Reconstruction of Original Site Plan Including Preser-
vation and Restoration of Existing Building and Reconstruction of Original Gas
Station, and New Addition To Existing Building On Existing Property and Property
to the West
Alternative 4 would involve retaining the existing building in its present location and continuing to
use it as is, but an addition would be constructed along the north end of the west (rear) elevation,
over the flood control channel.The demolished gas station would be reconstructed to replicate the
original plan. The market portion of the expanded building would occupy approximately 65,000 sf,
and the overall floor area, including the service station, would be 85,207 sf. The expanded square
-55-
t6 $�r
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
Clty of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
footage would result in a comparable level of development to the proposed project because it would
provide space for both the super market and the drug store. It would include a service station to
replicate that portion of the original site plan, but it would not include the fast food restaurants. This
alternative would be expected to add additional traffic at the gas station and the storage and use
of petroleum products normally associated with service station operations.
Alternative No.4 would eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse environmental
impact, loss of character-defining features of the buildings that appear to be eligible for the
California Register of Historic Places. This alternative will allow environmental impacts comparable
to that of the proposed project, with the addition of the service station environmental impacts
outlined under Alternative No. 2. The inclusion of the service station would increase adverse
impacts relative to the proposed project alternative. Regardless, based on the above analysis
Alternative No. 4 would not necessarily result in the creation of any new or additional significant
adverse environmental impacts. It is considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed
project, but not environmentally superior to the no project alternative which would eliminate all
changes to the historic structure values on the project site.
Alternative No. 4 was evaluated in Subchapter 4.4.3.6 as not meeting certain basic project
objectives or General Plan objectives established for this location by the City of Palm Springs. The
basic reasons for not meeting project objectives are presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the EIR and
in summary included:expansion of structures overthe existing flood control channel is not allowed;
inadequate parking; drive aisles would remain one way; insufficient building configuration for a
Ralph's store (seven specific configuration issues); and failure to meet the overall square footage
objective to support an acceptable mix of future retail uses. Therefore, the City concurs with the
conclusion in the EIR that Alternative No. 4 for the proposed project was properly eliminated from
further detailed consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the project objectives.
Alternative No. 5: New Retail Construction (West of Drainage) and Moving of Existing
Building to Western Portion of Property Retaining Facades and/or Portions of
Existing Building
Alternative 5 would move the entire existing building to the adjacent property to the west of the
drainage channel,and would construct an addition to the rear of the moved building to it to replicate
today's requirements for a market, including an overall floor area of 82,508 sf. The relocation of
the Alpha Beta Shopping Center would have an effect on the historical resource because it would
be removed from its historic site. The expanded square footage would result in a comparable level
of development to the proposed project because it would provide space for both the super market
and the drug store. This design would not include a service station to replicate that portion of the
original site plan. It also would not include the fast food restaurants and some of the other retail
space.
Alternative No. 5 would not eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse environ-
mental impact. This alternative would have a negative impact on historic resources as it would first
involve the demolition of the Alpha Beta building prior to its reconstruction. Because of the inherent
risk of damage that may result while moving a building, Alternative 5 would result in a potential
significant effect on the historic resources at the project site. This alternative will allow environ-
mental impacts comparable to that of the proposed project. Based on the above analysis
Alternative No. 5 is not forecast to result in the creation of any new or additional significant adverse
environmental impacts. This alternative does not eliminate the significant impact forecast to result
from the implementation of the proposed project. It is not considered to be environmentally
-56-
� � s9
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findin s
superior to the proposed project, due to the longer period of construction on the project site and
the equivalent adverse impact to historical resources at the site.
Alternative No. 5 was evaluated in Subchapter 4.4.3.6 as not meeting certain basic project
objectives or General Plan objectives established for this location by the City of Palm Springs. The
basic reasons for not meeting project objectives are presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the EIR and
in summary included: no truck access; distant location of parking; moving the existing structures
is not economically feasible; the building materials of the existing structures is not physically
possible; the market internal design could not meet Ralphs design requirements. Therefore, the
City concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that Alternative No. 5 for the proposed project was
properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because it will not reduce the potential
significant impact on historical resources and is not capable of accomplishing the project
objectives.
Alternative No. 6: Replace Existing Building and Design New Building on the West Side of
the Site with Elements Recalling the Historic Character
Alternative No. 6 would demolish the existing historical building, site Ralph's and Sav-on on the
west side of the property with their entrances facing a parking lot to the east, and would site
additional retail stores and restaurants along the remaining perimeter of the site. The proposed
square footage would result in an exact replica of the proposed project as shown on Figure 3-2.
This alternative is the equivalent of the proposed project, but the design elements incorporated are
intended to serve as the mitigation for the loss of the existing historic structure.
Alternative No. 6 would not eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse environ-
mental impact. This alternative would have the same negative impact on historic resources, as it
would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the project site. Alternative No. 6 would
result in a potential significant effect on the historic resources at the project site. Implementation
of this alternative will result in environmental impacts directly equivalent to that of the proposed
project.
This alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the original project, which has,
however, now been designed to incorporate design elements of the existing structures. Under this
evaluation,the use of essential design elements from the existing structures makes Alternative No.
6 environmentally superior to the proposed project because of the value of retaining these design
elements on the project site. Alternative No. 6 was evaluated in Subchapter 4.4.3.6 as consistent
with the basic project objectives and General Plan objectives. Since Alternative No. 6 can meet
the basic objectives of the proposed project, it is considered a reasonable and feasible alternative
to the proposed project. Therefore,the City concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that Alternative
No.6 forthe proposed projectwas properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because
it is not capable of accomplishing the project objectives.
Alternative No. 7: Retain Existing Building, Alter Non Character-Defining Features, and
Design New Building on the West Side of the Site with Elements Recalling the
Historic Character
Alternative No. 7 would retain the existing structures, site the Ralph's market on the west side of
the property, place the Sav-On in the existing Ralph's store building, utilize the adjacent existing
structure for some retail shops, and construct the additional retail stores along the southern
boundary of the property adjacent to Ramon Road. See Figure 4.4-6 of the EIR. The proposed
-57-
A Gla
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
square footage would be about equal to the proposed project. This alternative is the equivalent
of the proposed project in terms of available retail space that can be leased.
Alternative No. 7 would eliminate the single identified potentially significant adverse environmental
impact. This alternative would not have a significant negative impact on historic resources, even
though it would result in some modification of the structures. The modifications were assessed as
not causing significant adverse impact to the character-defining features of the structures.
Implementation of this alternative will result in environmental impacts directly equivalent to that of
the proposed project. Based on the above analysis,Alternative No. 7 is not forecast to result in the
creation of any new or additional significant adverse environmental impacts. Alternative No. 7 is
considered to be environmentally superior to the original project. Under this evaluation,Alternative
No. 7 may not be environmentally superior to the no project alternative because of the minor
modifications that would be permitted to the structures under this alternative.
Alternative 7 appears to be the only alternative considered that mitigates the significant effect on
the historical resource and also appears to attain the basic square footage objectives of the project.
However, as the comments from the major anchor tenants summarized in the EIR indicate,
Alternative 7 will not meet their site design requirements and both major anchors indicate that a
shopping centerso designed will not meet several objectives(parking,access,etc.)ortheir primary
objective of creating an attractive,safe and modern center that will attract customers and compete
with other newer center within the general vicinity (such as the Jensen's center on Ramon and
Farrell.
Since both major anchors for the project indicate that they would not participate in the
redevelopment of the shopping center with the design shown in Alternative No. 7, this alternative
will not meet project objective E which states: Generate revenues sufficient to construct the new
structures in a manner consistent with the existing modern architectural theme; provide adequate
infrastructure at the project site; and provide a positive return on investment to the project
developer. Because it fails to meet this essential project objective, it is not considered to be a
feasible and reasonable alternative. Therefore,the City concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that
Alternative No. 7 for the proposed project was properly eliminated from further detailed
consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the project objectives.
Based upon the findings presented in the Final EIR, the above described alternatives have been
determined by the City to represent a reasonable range of alternatives for consideration with the
proposed project and to adequately address alternatives in the Final EIR. Questions were raised
in comments received regarding modifications to Alternative No. 7 to more fully meet project
objectives, but at no time during the review process for this project has the applicant indicated that
the major anchor tenants would be willing to locate at the proposed project site if Alternative 7 or
any of the variants suggested in written comments were implemented. Thus, without a major
tenant project objective E outlined above still cannot be fulfilled by implementing Alternative No 7
or variants suggested in written comment received on the EIR. Therefore, the City concurs with
the finding in the EIR that the none of the alternatives placed before it for consideration can meet
the project objectives established in the EIR. This concludes the summary of environmental
impacts that were identified in the Final EIR and the Initial Study as unavoidable significant adverse
impacts with mitigation related to implementation of the proposed project.
H. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
IN THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR BUT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED AS
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY
-58-
/ #4G/
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Statement of Facts and Findings
The Final EIR contains a single proposed mitigation measure that may not be feasible for the City
to implement because of potential conflicts with existing municipal development code requirements.
The following noise impact mitigation measure was included in the EIR to reduce daytime truck
noise impacts in the truck loading area from causing significant noise impacts on adjacent sensitive
noise receptors, residents of the Gallery Apartment.
Operational Noise Mitigation Measure
4.3.4.5 Truck deliveries and loading dock operation impacts can be partially mitigated by construction of a wall
(noise barrier)sufficiently high along the west and north sides of the project site. The existing 6-foot
wall is not adequate for this purpose. A wall of 10-12 feet high above ground is recommended along
the north boundary starting at the northeast property corner and extending east to the shops that are
proposed along the north property line.
The installation of an 8 - 10-foot high wall at the location required could violate the City's
development code requirements for height and safety of such walls and may create a negative
visual setting in the area due to the monolithic character of a brick wall of such height. Should a
decision be made to restrict the height of the wall between 8 - 10 feet for the reasons outlined
above, the City recognizes that it will allow a significant noise impact to affect that adjacent
residences. However, because there are competing values in this instance(safety is foremost, but
regulatory and aesthetic concerns are also being considered),the City finds that the noise impacts
caused by the proposed project with the 8 - 10 foot wall cannot be fully mitigated to a level of
insignificance and a statement of overriding consideration is thereby included herein, in which
specific economic,legal,social,technological or other considerations make infeasible the reduction
of project noise impacts from truck operations at the loading dock to a nonsignificant level through
installation of a 10-12 foot wall.
-59-
144Z
® DRAFT
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BENEFITS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29638 AND CASE NO. 5.0827
(PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 259)
RALPHSISAV-ON CENTER
I. PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits from approving the proposed project are related to the enhanced retail commercial
services that can be provided to local City residents in accordance with the current General Plan
Objectives and Policies. The project benefits outlined below were considered by the City in
performing the balancing test with those unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts
presented earlier in this document.
1. Benefits of Implementing the Proposed Project
a. The proposed project will generate an estimated 292 jobs, for a net increase of 182 jobs
within the City. Assuming average wages of$20,000 per year, the net increase in annual
income within the City is estimated to be$3,640,000. (Lundin Letter, September 17, 2001)
b. The proposed project will increase sales within the City by an estimated$22,260,000. The
estimated increase in City sales tax will be approximately $176,480 annually. (Lundin
Letter, September 17, 2001)
C. Real estate value for the property is estimated to increase by about$16,717,297. Property
taxes returned to the City are estimated to be $167,173 annually. (Lundin Letter,
September 17, 2001)
d. Business tax revenue is forecast to increase by about $3,750 annually. (Lundin Letter,
September 17, 2001)
e. Replacementof a functionally and economically obsolete center with onethat meets current
shopper expectations. (Lundin Letter, September 17, 2001)
f. Elimination of a blighted shopping center. The requirement for anchor tenants is essential
to overcome a history of vacancies and frequent tenant turnovers at the existing center.
Some specific factors of blight at the proposed project site include: aging, deteriorating,
unsafe, and poorly maintained buildings and structures; and high business vacancies, low
lease rates, high turnover rates,or abandoned buildings, both of which occur at the present
center. (Lundin Letter, September 17, 2001)
g. Replacement of structures that may not currently meet safety codes and energy
conservation mandates with new structures that fully comply with seismic safety
requirements and current energy conservation mandates. Specifically, masonry walls pose
DRAFT
) ALI
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5,0827
City of Palm Springs Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations
serious code deficiencies,including inadequately reinforced,stacked-bonded masonry use
in the existing center(Dick and Patel structural report)
h. New safety enhancements at the project site, including fewer driveways to minimize
pedestrian/vehicle safety conflicts, dedication of additional street right-of-way per the
General Plan and sidewalk and bus-stop upgrades.
i. The new center will eliminate the following additional blight concerns at the existing
shopping center: covering the flood control channel for additional use; putting vacant
properties into productive use while eliminating highly disturbed vacant land;and elimination
of the alcove between Ralphs and Building B as an attractive nuisance for vagrants and a
potential health hazard due to presence of human wastes.
j. The new shopping center will eliminate compromised design features such as: the drive
aisles running the wrong way in the supermarket; handicapped deficient aisle widths in
Ralphs; and inferior(somewhat hidden)shops in the alcove area without direct visibility and
access from the parking lot.
k. Increases convenient shopping experiences and current inadequate shopping needs in the
project area with alternatives for quality mid-density trade area (estimated —12,000
residents within a one-mile radius). In particular responds to needs of senior residents with
minimal mobility for access to a full range of desired services, in particular a full service
drug store and as a place to gather and communicate. (Lundin Letter, September 17,
2001)
I. The new shopping center will fulfill many of the City's key General Plan Objectives and
Policies related commercial facilities, including: meeting the shopping needs of permanent
residents (Objective 3.26.1 and Policies 3.26.1 and 3.26.2); enhancing the visual setting
adjacent to City roads and provision of better connectors,including bikeways and walkways
(Objectives 5.24.a and b, and Policies 5.24.7, 5.24.8 and 5.24.10); better quality roads
(Objective 7.1.3.b and Policy 7.1.9); greater safety on roads (Objective 7.2 and Policies
7.2.1,7.2.2,and 7.2.10);development that pays for required improvements(Objective 7.3);
development with adequate parking (Objective 7.6 and Policy 7.62); enhanced access to
local services, particularly the disabled (Objective 7.7 and Policies 7.7.4 and 7.7.6); and
adequate infrastructure to support uses (Objective 8.1 and Policy 8.1.2).
M. If a 10-12 foot high sound wall is not constructed,the benefit to the City will be in the higher
safety standard achieved;consistency with municipal code wall heights;and the elimination
of a very high wall that would create a negative aesthetic effect for adjacent uses.
J. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the findings addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the Lead Agency to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant adverse impacts,and to determine
whether the project related significant impacts can be acceptably overridden by the project benefits
when the two are compared and balanced. As outlined in Section E above, the proposed project
is forecast to contribute to unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts in a single
environmental category: cultural (historical) resources, unless the City decides that other factors
-2-
r /s &V
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Project Benefits and Statement of 0veriidina Considerations
dictate construction of a sound attenuation wall of less than 10 feet, which would add a second
significant adverse environmental impact.
The City hereby finds that the previously stated benefits of the proposed project, as defined in the
proposed action and as will be authorized by the City of Palm Springs through approval of the
development of the Ralphs/Sav-on Center, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environ-
mental effect resulting from the demolition and loss of the existing structures on the project site that
maybe eligible for the California Register of Historic Places. In an area of the City that is currently
under served with retail commercial stores and where blight has reduced the economic and
functionality of the existing shopping center, the City concludes that the benefits outlined above,
that accrue to the community from construction of the new shopping center, outweigh the loss of
the structures at the existing shopping center. The City has already determined that it does not
support the existing structures on the site as meriting a City "Class V historical designation, and
the social and economic benefits stated in the previous sectidn are considered sufficient to offset
the loss of the existing structures.
Further, the City finds that redevelopment of the existing shopping center will fulfill many of the
City's objectives and policies regarding adequate alternative access and provision of higher quality
access for disabled persons who can more easily utilize the new shopping center to meet their
needs. The additional revenues that will accrue to the City will benefit the whole City through
general fund expenditures for police service,fire service and other City service functions. The City
concludes that these benefits provide additional value from the project that justify allowing the
shopping center to develop and that outweigh the loss of the structures at the existing shopping
center.
The City's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse
environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to
insignificant levels where feasible,or to the lowest achievable levels where significant unavoidable
impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed seven alternatives to determine whether they are
reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether these alternatives might
reduce or eliminate the single significant impact of the proposed action. The proposed project EIR
presents evidence that implementing the proposed project will contribute to significant loss of
structures that may be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resource, which cannot be
substantially mitigated to insignificant levels. This significant impact, plus one additional potential
significant impact, have been outlined above and the City finds that all feasible alternatives and
mitigation measures have been adopted and identified for implementation under the City's
authority.
The City finds that the project's benefits are substantial as outlined in Section I of this document
and summarized above and that these benefits justify overriding the unavoidable significant
adverse impact associated with the proposed project. This finding is supported by the fact that
many of the benefits listed above result in the project fulfilling an important role for the City by
implementing specific General Plan goals and objectives as outlined above. The City further finds
that the benefits outlined above, when balanced against the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental impact,outweigh the impact because of the social,economic and other values which
accrue to the City as outlined in Section I of this document.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City has independently reviewed the
proposed project EIR and Sections A and B of this document, and fully understands the scope of
proposed project, including the demolition of the existing structures on the site. Further, the City
-3-
I A Gs-
Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Case No. 5.0827
City of Palm Springs Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations
finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts have been identified in the EIR, public comment, and public testimony.
These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Sections D, E and F and the City concurs
with the facts and findings contained in those sections. The City so finds that a reasonable range
of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document (Section G) and that no reasonable
or feasible alternatives which could substantially lessen project impacts have been identified and
are available for adoption.
The City concurs with the twelve (thirteen if the sound wall is less than 10 feet in height) identified
economic, social and other benefits which will result from implementing the proposed project. The
City has carefully considered and balanced these substantial social, economic and other benefits
against the unavoidable significant adverse effect of the proposed project. Given the substantial
social, economic and other benefits that will accrue to the City from authorizing implementation of
the proposed project, the City hereby finds that the benefits identified herein outweigh the
unavoidable significant adverse impact,and hereby override the unavoidable environmental effects
to obtain the social, economic and other benefits listed in Section I, including, if necessary, the
benefit of safety, legal compliance with design requirements and aesthetic values for a sound wall
of less than 10 feet in height.
-4-
Fax=7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:62 F.U2
SELZER, EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP
rt,u0uasun uvllRn,[6AL/L!!1'rnrtm6rtsav
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAM T,SUM 777E.rA02ULTE CANTON WAY SUM"8
a'.CURTEALr PAIMSPMINGS,C*MORMrA 02262
EMILr'PEM21EMPHILL TELEPHONE 760�320-53077
D7ANEC,ELASDEL FAMMLE 760-920-9507
October 30, 2001
VIA FACSIMII_E ONLY
David Aleshim, City Attorney
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: Lundin Development
Dear Mr_ Aleshire:
As you know this office represents Lundin Development on its project for the
redevelopment of the Sunrise and Ramon Shopping Center. After the last City Council meeting,my
client has been attempting to encourage bothRalph's and the landlord of Smoketree to work together
in order to provide certain protections that would give the City Council comfort that approval of this
project will not in any way result in the potential for damaging the economic health of the Ralph's
Shopping Center in Smoketree. Before I discuss the progress of those discussions, I would once
again like to point out that there is no evidence in the record nor has there been any assertion or
suggestion on the part of Lundin Development or Ralph's that the purpose or the result of the Lundin
project would be the closing of the Smoketree Ralph's. As Ralph's has indicated repeatedly, the
Smoketree Ralph's is a profitable store and they are merely,with this project,attempting to offer the
same high quality service to the residents surrounding Sunrise and Ramon as is currently available
to the residents surrounding Smoketree.
Since the last City Council meeting,we were able to obtain the relevant portions of
the Ralph's lease and have found that the"go dark"provisions that we discussed during the last City
Council meeting are unnecessary in that the lease already has similar provisions which provides
Smoketree even greater protections. Attached you will find excerpts ofthe Ralph's Smoketree lease
which shows that the go dark provisions provide for a ninety(90)day notice period and a maximum
thirty(30) day"go dark" period after which the landlord can regain control of the center and relet
it,which is the landlord's traditional role. You will also note that the current provision provides that
in turning over the store to the landlord under those conditions, Ralph's must provide the landlord
with the store which is fully equipped with the appropriate trade fixtures to allow another grocery
user to quickly move in to the property. These provisions assure that in the unlikely event that
+ Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:35 f.03
SELZ R, EALY, HEMPHILL &c BLASDEL, LLP
October 30, 2001
Page 2
Ralph's should determine to close its Smoketree location,no matter what the reason for that closure,
there are significant protections both to protect the economic health of the center. These terms allow
the landlord to perform his traditional role,which is to market and lease the property, and yet gives
him the protection of knowing that until he is successful in releasing that property,Ralph's is forme
to pay rent,including percentage rent based on the average of the previous three(3)years. I would
ask, in accordance with the request of Ralph's counsel,that the specific provisions of this lease not
be made part of the public record as it is a proprietary document. Ralph's is willing, however, for
you to share the specific details of the"go dark" provisions with the council members themselves.
If there is a concern with respect to this confidentiality issue please advise me at your earliest
convenience.
Also attached you will find the letter from Ralph's indicating that at the request of
the Smoketree landlord who has now sought an extension of the lease term,Ralph's is indicating that
provided the Lundin project at Sunrise and Ramon is approved,Ralph's will exercise its first option
to extend for an additional five (5)year period. This, as you know, significantly increases Ralph's
financial commitment to the Smoketree.site and is the type of commitment which would be unlikely
ifMph's truly did intend to close the Smoketree store upon the approval of the Sunrise and Ramon
project,
We believe that these provisions provide significantly greater protections both to the
Smoketree landlord and to the other merchants in Smoketree because they indicate Ralph's
commitment to stay in that shopping center and to continue operating as it has. I would hope that
you would share these facts with the council and that the council will see that these provisions assure
that the councils action in approving Sunrise and Ramon will not cause undo harm in Smoketree,
but at the same time,will provide a new resource so that the residents in the Sunrise/Ramon area will
be able to enjoy the same services that those in the Smoketree area have long enjoyed.
Sincerely
Emily Perri Hemphill
Selzer,Ealy, Hemphill&Blasdel,LLP
EPH/sj
Enclosures
cc: Greg Bever
Fax:76WMbUr Uct bU 'U1 1b:4U F. 1(
OCT-30-2001 16!12 RRLPHS/LEGnL 310 884 2616 P.02i92
GROCERY COMPANY WAREHOUSE STORES
CUFTORATE Of'!•ICES P.O.BOX 54143 • I. Aneela.CWRgrAW tgflS4
1MIIfam N.Travia (316)dE4.8W0'
501110 CAOruel FOX(310)atf4.2010
October30,2001
VIA TELECOPIER
daeon Dgoareiner, Esq.
Slovak Baron E Empey,LLP
1111 E. Tahqub Canyon Way, Suite lib
Palm Springs,Caldomia 92262
ME: Ralphs 8181
Smoketree Village Shopping Center
Palm$pnrig%California
Door JA9ow
This letter will serve to❑onfirm our telephone conversation of yesterday, In that
conversation,We discussed the proposed expansion of our Ralphs supermarket at the intersection of
Sunrise and Ramon in palm Springs, and the PossiDle impact of this expansion an our store in Smoketree
Village Shopping Center. We also discussed the fact that our present lease agreement with your client for
the Smokefree Ralphs supermarket presently includes protactlons for the landlord should Ralphs elect to
cease operations at Smoketree, Including the right of the landlord to terminate the Ralphs lease.
The Ralphs Smaketree lease Is currently soheduled to expire on December 31,2005, and
Ralphs has 2 remaining options to Word that term,which allow Ralphs to remain in the Smokeuee
Shopping Center until the end of your cfients master leasehold interest. The next available option is for
five(5)years,and the following and final option is for 5 years and 6 month;, RalphS iS required to
exercise each option no later Irian 6 months prior to the then expiration date.
In order to satisfy any further coneems of the aoUncil members and your client. Ralphs is
willing to exercise the next available option under its lease for the Smokpbvo location, which would extend
the term or tnat lease to Dgicgmher 31,201p. Ralphs is willing to take this step as an inducement to and
on condition that the City of Palm springs approve the expansion and reconstmiction of the Ralphs
supermarket at Sunrise and Ramon, As we discussed,I anticipate the support of your elient for our
sunrise and Ramon project will be imperative to obtain Council approval.
Please let me know if the foregoi ' eceptable to your client,
yo tran-Truavis
WHT/htt
cc: Laura Fain
Greg Beaver
Emily Hemphill, Esq,
GATRAVI=Pr011dabareiner.o30.wpa
RALPHS a FOOD 4 LESS • BELL MARKETS a CALA FOODS • FOODS CO • PRICE RITE
TOTAL P.02
-10/31/01 12:39 FAX 760 322 2107 SLOVAK BARON-& EXPEF - to 062/UUJ
SLJVAK BARON&FMPENIu,
A T T 0 P N E Y 5 A T L A W
rxomns s,s'LavAe 11116TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,SUITE 110 PALM SPRINGS,CALVONNIA 02262
DAVM L.BARON
MAKC B.ZWEY PHONE(760)322-2275 FAH(760)322.2107
JASOND DABAR£INER
PETER M.BOCHNEWICII
MAAY L,QUTRAP
CHARLES L.GALIAGRE
KATHIEBROWNE
BM14 F.WHIMMY
Of COUNEEL
W 09H A.VAN HULLF
MYRON MOYFAs,P,C,
October 31, 2001
VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. William 1I. Travis
Ralph's Grocery Company
P.O. Box 54143
Los Angeles, CA 90054
Re: Ralph's 181
Smoke Tree Village Shopping Center
Palm Springs,CA
pear Bill:
This letter will confirm the acceptance by the James W. Wood Trust of Ralph's offer set
forth in your letter of October 30L'to exercise the next 5 year option under its Lease for the
Smoke Tree location, extending the term of the Lease to December 31, 2010, conditioned on the
approval of the expansion and reconstruction of the Ralph's supermarket at Sunrise and Ramon
by the City of Palm Springs,
Ralph's commitment to stay in the Smoke Tree Center as evidenced by its exercise of the
next five-year option period,together with the existing terms contained in the Second
Amendment to Lease dated September 13, 1990(which provides the Lessor with the rights to,
among other things, terminate the Lease, acquire the Lessee's interest in the fixtures and
equipment, and re-lease the building in the unlikely event that Ralph's were to cease operations
at that location) adequately address the concerns which we expressed on behalf of the Lessor at
the last City Council meeting. Based on Ralph's agreement to exercise its next option period as
described above, the Lessor has no further objections to the proposed project at Sunrise and
Ramon.
11DATA\Bu5Ucp0James W.Wood Tms[\Mph's Grocery Leau\Ur.Travls.x=vptance ofp`oposM.wpd
Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:34 P.04
OCT-2?-2001 17= RALPNS/LEGAL 310 804 2610 P.01/12
R"HS GROCERY COMPANY
P.O.Box 54143,Los Angelus,GeliOprnla 90054
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
LEGAL DEPARTMENT (310) 884-6000
PAX # (310) 884.-2610
MARY M, KASPER
Senior Director - Real Estate LOW
WILLIAM H. TRAVIS
Senior counsel
MATTHEW C. KANE
Corporate Attorney
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
Name: Emily Hemphill Date: October 29, 2001
Finn:
'Felephone:760-320-5977 FAX#: 760-320-9507
From: William H. Travis Time:
Note: As discussed, the following pages from our Smoke Tree Lease are sent to you solely
for your review and Consideration, and the content thereof is to be keep strictly
confidential, and not disclosed or discussed without my prior consent. I will look
forward [o talking with you on this matter tomorrow.
xa:xx*r
NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING COVER SHEET;
12 Letter Size
Legal Size
ewxxx+wrxx*wwxrz:aba.xl[rllxxar YRx xxxxxx x++**xT'K:x.r**rxxka<sr xzp Wr*4i**ax%3x
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT (310) 864-6000
•*****larr3x****xx•***x ft e.o*4**+lax***V*+i#**444**0 Ro t#x*xxx*****f*�*.t+•-i t4
gran msnoar,4lnnne.a.,,I,.rw'an - t1a,l alaN n 1e.nb.erad nM mw wmdn Wr -den Mot a nWliari .QanF{.^Y•I•n..n- o f;...,n..y.i..l.,.;n�,P�
ppgauMl bw. If the faldar or Ink a mvw 11=MA hMnaad RaMlwrt w x1a frniaq-ar.pant fop-41.fW aemt ,ftq tfw m1sa101 Ca ma Inenaea nclal.nt,rw&a aereb,nau%1
mat InV al�amWA00%inotru len w MpYlno at thh..emmanlc.nan Io.Viuv O4 nod. Ir yma Am. -caald im tm a, nicuion In ernr,plama natay w Imniadivwry aY*o avhnne,Ind
naaa 11.a,fohw—M;01 h..or,n1 ada.sa a.nd 00.4 vI Ma V46 hata Srnlc., ry,larlh yw.
Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:64 F'. U5
OCT-29-2001 17:53 RRLPHS/LEGAL 310 824 2610 P.02/12
'r
Lessor has, on the fifth day following the due date of any
payment that Lessaa has railed to pay, sent to Lessee by fax a
notioe Dtating (i) the nature ano the amount Or the overdue
payment, (ii) the fact that if the payment is not made within 10
days from the date of the fax, a late Charge will apply, and
(iii) the amount of the late charge."
8. Article 3 is fully performed and supereeded, and is
hereby deleted from the Lease.
9. Artigla 4 is amended to be as follows:
"R-C�SSESSION AND USE
"Article 4.
114.1 uc2 of Mar]cQt.
"(a) Lessee Shall, for at least three years after
completion of the Remodeling, occupy the Market and conduct at
Ralphs supermarket business in substantially the same manner as
Lessee conducts its business in its other stores in the Coachella
Valley. (For purposes of this Lease, the phrase "completion of
the Remodeling" shall mean the date Lessee opens for business in
the remodeled premises or on october 1, 1990, whichever first
occurs.) Such three years excludes, however, temporary closures
for rebuilding r9lXowi.ng a casualty, resulting from a labor
dispute, for further remodeling, or as a result of condemnation
or exercise of governmental police power. For purposes of this
Lease, when the name "Ralphs" is referred to specifically, it
t
shall include such other Iname as Lessee is then using to operatte
its supermarket business in such area. Lessee may, subject to
Section 4.1 (b) below, in its sale discretion at any time after
-8-
Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:36 P.08
OCT-29-2001 17:54 PALPHS/LFGPL 310 884 2610 P.05/12
operate as a Ralphs supermarket) have the option td elect to
terminate this Lease and purchase Lessee's interest in the Maa;ket
and all building fixtures and equipment (i.e. fixtures and
equipment necessary or desirable in the operation of the building
without regard to the particular occupant thereof) . Lessor shall
also purchase ouch of Lessee's trade fixtures and equipment (i.e.
fixtures and equipment pertaining to Lessee's businoss) as Lessor
requests at least 30 days prior to closing that Lessee leave in
the building (except Lessee's signs and computer systam and
automated checkout terminals, which will not in any event be sold
to Lasser) . Such purchase shall be upon the following terms and
conditions:
(i) The purchase price shall be Lessee's
unamerti2ed Coat of Remodeling (as defined below) (but not
including amounts paid to Vans Grocery Company in connection with
Lessee's acquisition of the Lo95Q from Vona) and unamortized oDSt
of all building fixtures and equipment and any of Lessee's trade
fixtures that will remain in the )?gilding (except Lessee's signs
and computer system and automated checkout terminals, which
Lessee may remove from the demised premises) , subject to
adjustment as provided below (the "purchase Price") , The.
Purchase Price shall be determined as of the last day of the
operating Pe i If the last day of the Operating Period falls
an or subsequent to DCCtmber 31, 2000, the Purchase Price sha1JL
be zero. _
(ii) The Purchase Price may, at Lessor's
election, be paid either in cash at a closing not later than two
-11-
Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:36 P.09
OCT-29-2001 17=54 RFLL.PIa /LEGAL 310 9Bd 2910 P.06i12
months after the and of such 30-day period or Lessor may pay such
amount by a Prarniamory Note with a time-price differential
calculated like interest at the then prima of reference rate of
Bank of America N. T. & S. A. plus 1t. If Lessor elects a
Promissory Note, the principal and inWrest of the Promissory
Note will be fully amortized by iaonthly payments aftAr the
closing of such purchase; provided, however, that the Purchase
Price shall be adjusted so that over the term of the Promissory
Rotor Lessor shall not he raquirtd to pay to Lessee more than 50%
of the f+net rental" (as defined hereinbelow) from the demised
Promises, The Proxls6ory Note shall provide that all payments
made pursuant to it shall be credited first toward interest (then
due or accrued) and then toward principal. The Proynissory Note
shall, have a period to maturity (the "mote Term") depending upon
the year in which the Notice is given, as fellow's,
Year
(,Tuly 1 - June 30)
in which the Promissory ?Tote
Notice is.eavon reried_o ?4aturity
1992 - 1993 10 years
1993 - 1994 9 years
1994 - 1995 8 years
1995 - 1996 7 yoar's
1996 ., 1997 6 years
1997 - 1998 5 years
1999 - 1999 4 years
6/30/1999 to 12/31/1959 3 years
However, it any of the following occur; namely, the present
Lessor (A) sells all or any portion of its interest in the
Shopping Center to any party othsr than the present Master
Lesson; (s) acquires the fee interest in all or any portion of
-12-
Fax:T60320950T Uct 60 '01 16 5l F'. 1U
OCT-29-2091 17:54 RRLPHSiLEGHL 310 864 2610 P.07i12
the shopping center; or (c) obtains an extension of the Master
Lease so that the then remaining term *Xceed6 50 years, then 'the
Promissory Note shall, upon consummation of any such transaction,
beeeme all due and payable in full; provided that, for purposes
of paragraph (a) above, a transfer In conjunction with estate
planning or a testamentary bequest shall not constitute a sale of
411 or any portion of Lessors interest in the Shopping Centet,
and provided further that if the present Master Lessor, after
acquiring all or any portion of the Shopping Center from the
Present Lessor, sells all or any portion of the Shopping Centex
formerly held by the present Lessor, then the promissory Mote
shall, upon consummation of any such transaction, become all true
and payable in full.
(iii) The Promissory Note will be secured by
a perfected assignment for security to Lessee of 501 of the net
rental received by Lessor from, the demised premises.
(iv) For this purpose, "net rental" means
all consideration raceived by Lessor on account of the hiring or
use of the demised premises over the Note Term, excluding
Collections from tenants on account of common area expenses in
accordancb with cuEtomary provisions therefor, and less all
amounts that Lessor pays to third parties (including Master
Z,es54r on account of ground rental) for bona-fide services and
obligations connected with the rental or use Of the demised
premises. All amounts received on the J'romissoi`y Nate shall be
applied first against the first payments coming due thereunder,
and if, at the end of the Note Term, it is not fully paid because
-13-
Fax:7605209507 Uct 60 '01 16 al P. 11
OCT-29-2001 17:5s RALPWS/LEG4- 310 aG4 2G10 P.00/12
the not rental is not sufficient, all remaining sums due
thereunder will be forgiven and the promissory gate will
terminate. Lessor agrees, during the term of the promissory
Note, to supply Lessee with copies of all leases of the demised
prekinda or any portion thereof and all financial information
relating to the demised premises reasonably requested by L2sssee_
(v) Concurrently with the closing of the
assignm8nt, subletting or puwbase, as the case may be, Lessee
will remove its personal proporty, signs, Computer and automated
checkout terminals, and any trade fixtures that Lessor does not
request remain in the promises, and this Lease will terminate,
and Lessor and Lessee Will be relea5@d from all further
Obligations except those set forth in any promissory Nate and the
Security agreaMent therefor.
(vi) The right of termination as provided
herein shall be the sole remedy available to Lessor, if there is
a Lepsor's Lender, no disapproval or notics of termination by
Lessor under this paragraph shall be effective unless it is also
executed by Lessons Lender.
(vii) Lessor shall have no obligation to pay
any afiount to Lessee, and the Purchase price shall be zero, if at
the time Lessee gives the Notice provided for in Section 4.1 (b)
or for up to three years thereafter, Lessee is constructing or
remodeling or COMMOnCes, construction or remodeling of a new
Ralphs supermatket within a radius of one and one-half miles from
the Market. This subparagraph shall not be applicable to the
remodeling or a Ralphs suparmarkat that has been in operation for
-14-
Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:68 F'. 12
OC7-29-2001 17:55 RRLPHS/LEML 310 0$4 2610 P,09/12
at least one year at the time the Notice is given. If this
subparagraph beCoMeS applicable, then (A) after Lessor has paid
to Lessee any sums on the Purchase Price pursuant to this Article
before such construction or remodeling becomes known to Lessor,
Lessee shall, upon demand, refund such sums paid to Lessee with
interest, and (8) Lessee shall cancel or caur�a to be canceled any
Promissory Note that LQSsor has delivered to Lessee to evidence
all or a portion of the purchase Price.
" (d) At any time after Lessee notifies Leesm-
that Lessee contemplates a transaction covered by this Section,
Lessee will, upon request of Lessor, furnish Lessor with a
Statement of the amount which Lessor wvitUd be required to pay
pursuant hereto_
"As used in this Section, the unamortised Cost: of:
Remodeling shall be CCmpated using cost depreciation on a
straight line basis over a period, of ten years, commencing after
completion of the Remodeling, provided that the r.osts of parking
lot striping and repaving shall be on a five year basis. "cost
of Remodeling" means the aggregate of the amounts paid by Lessee
for remodeling of the Market and the Common Area as required by
paragraph 23 of this Second Amandment to Lease, including all
Change vrderS in the construction (including mechanical,
electrical, heating/ventilation/air conditioning and finish work
and the sidewalk on the north side of the Market) , the loading
dock, and the fees and charges for the Market building permit,
the utility connection fees and charges, the performance bond,
and the, cost of the fixtures and equipment to remain in the
..15..
Fax:7603209507 Uct 30 '01 16:68 F. 15
OCT-29-2001 17:55 RRLPHG/LEGRL 310 GOA 2610 P.10/12
Market, Such CoSt of Remodeling shall not exceed $3.6 million in
the aggregate_
"Within 90 days fallowing the date Lessee opens for
busineso in the remodeled premises, Lessee shall make available
to Lessor reasonable backup material showing the Cost of
RModeling. Within eo days following notice that the backup
material is available, Lessor may audit the backup material to
confirm that th4 amounts indicated were actually expended on the
Remodeling.
"If Change orders for the. Cast of Remodeling of the.
Market only, as described above, exceed five hundred thousand
dollars ($5oo,000) in the aggregate, Lessor may, at its option,
arrange a further audit of such change orders within said 90-day
period. The audit shall be conducted by an experienced
contractor or architect familiar with supermarket construction.
If the audit of the Change orders discloses avoidable cost (as
discussed below) exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($5o,00o) in
the aggregate, the Purchase Price shall be reduced by the amount
of the avoidable cost in excess of fifty thousand dollars
(050,000) . Avoidable cost shall be determined as follows: if a
change order involved a construction item that had been started
or completed and thereafter was Changed at the request of Lessee
and if coats were incurred that should have been avoided by
Lessee, then avoidable cost is the amount of increased cost of
Completing that construction item.
"Whether or not a cost was avoidable shall be
determined in the first instance by the :Auditbr, and such
-16-
Fax:7603209507 Uct 3U '01 lb:59 F. 14
OCT-29-2001 17=55 RALPHS/LEGAL 310 884 2610 P.11/12
determination, together with the information supportincl the
detarmination that a cost was avoidable shall be delivered in
writing to Lessee on or before the end of the 90^day period.
Lessee may challenge the determination of the auditor within Go
days thereafter by notice in writing to Lessor. if necessary,
for a period of 30 days following Lessee's nQtio¢ to Lessor -of
Lessee's challenge of the determination, Lessor and Ias56o :shall
negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes over whotber Qr
not a cost was avoidable. in the event that Lessor and Lessee
cannot agree within the 30-day period, at the end of such 30-day
period Lessor and Lessee shall submit the dispute to The N4091
Partnership Inc. , the market architect, which will determine, as
soon as reasonably possible, but in no event more than 30 days
following submission, whether or not the Cast was avoidable. The
determination of The Nadel Partnership Inc. shall be final and
binding upon Lessor and Lessee."
"(e) If, at the end of the 30-day ,period during
Which Lessor has the option to elect to terminate this Lease,
Lessor has .not elected to terminate this Lease, Lessee shall be
free to cease all operations in the Marxer., assign or sublet the
demised premisoc, or Oange the use of the demised premises,
without obtaining Lessor's consent, If L-zaae elects to cease
all operations in the Market, I.eGsee shall continue to pay
minimum rental and Common Expenses as provided in this Lease and
percentage rental, which POTOCAtage rental due from Lessee to
Lessor during the period of time the Market is closed shall be
-17-
Fax:7603209507 Oct 30 '01 16:39 P. 15
OCT-29-2001 17;SG RRLPHS/LEGAL 310 e94 2610 P.12i12
the average of the percentage rental actually paid by Lessee to
Lessor for the three-year period prior to the closure.
" (f) If, after Le-rcoo gives the Nation provided
ror in Section 4.1 (b) and ceases doing business in the MarMt as
a RalphS supermarket., the original Lessee, Ralphs Grocery
Company, retains any interest in this Lease, Lessor shall have
the option to buy out such original Laosee's interest in this.
Leave (and acquire in connection therewith any sublease as to
which such original Lessee is the sublessor) , upon payment to,
such original Lessee in cash of the buyout Purchase Price, if
any, that would have been applicable based upon the last day of
the Operating Period plus any additional costs and tees incurred
by :5zGh original Lorsee in connection with any awulgnmant or
subletting of the premises (but without any adjustment for
interest or any rental or other income received by the original
Lessee after the end of the operating• Perlod) , and upon causing
such original Lessee to be released ftoin any further liability on
this pease.
"(g) if Losmee or any assignee or sublessee,
changes the use of the Market from a supermarket, the minimum
rental under this Lease shall be changed to be the average of the
total of the minimum rental and percentage rental actually paid
by Lessee to Lessor for the three-year period prior to the
change, provided that the three-year period does not include any
period during wolch the Market is closed by Lessee, and the
percentage used to compute the percentage rental under this Lease
shall be changed from time to time to reflect the usual and
-la-
TOTAL P.12
LL odd' �dI
✓�' Q"��ti,tc
G�" ✓
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Cleric's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside - ----- -- --
-- -------------------------
Nc.8850
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Department of Planning & Building
Planning Division
3200 Tahqwtz Canyon Way
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Palm s 23-g82., CFAX(7 a 3 2-8
TEL' (760)TDD(760)afi 9527) 22360
the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen
years,and not a party to or interested in the MEMORANDUM
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a From' Director of Planning and Building
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING To Distribution
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Sabi: Notice of Availability of an Environmental
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Impact Report that evaluates implementation of a
Ralph's/Sav-on Shopping Center Prefect pro-
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been pused by Lorain Development Coin any, Case
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the No. 5 0827/Tentative Parcel Map 29saa
Superior Court of the Countyof Riverside,State of The City of Palm Spnngs has preparhdanErv,
ronmental Impact R apart (EIR whit
evaluates
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case the
construction and operation of a retail shoping -
rthwest corner of
Number 19123G,that the notice,of which the
Ramon Roa a located nd SunriseeV in the City.QThe
proposed pprotIect Is the subdrvtston of 9.9 gross
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller acres, or 8.29 net acres, into eigght commercial
parcels, ranging in size from..0.13 acres to 2 82
than non pariel,has been published In each regular acres The existing commercal build in on the
eastern half of the site are proposed to be demol-
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any fished in order to allow new parking areas, drive
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: aisles and buildings to be constructed (about
p g 104,000 square feet of shopping center) In con-
junction with the Tentative Parcel Map (N 0.
29638), new perimeter landscaping, new perime- _-
JUIy 21st ter walkways,reciprocal easements for ppublic Utd-
itie5,access, parking and drainage will be provid-
-------------------------------------------------------------- ed, as well as any additional dedications to ac-
commodate full street width improvements along
Raman Road and Sunrise Way. The EIR also
---_---------------------------------------------------------- evaluates a proposed General Plan Amendment
to modify General Plan Policy 6.222 to allow a
reductron of the 20' required landscape buffer be-
tween commercial or mixed-use structures and
All in the year 2001 residential uses, in the event of a hardship.
The City has authorized the release of the Draft
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the summa public summarized bove one P comment for theprotect
foregoing is true and correct. verse environmental impacts less Ofedote the D aft
eli-
gable historical resources, id
9tlt EIR far which no mitigation Is available if the pro-
godusdigidemented as
related
mater can be I
bated at Palm Springs,California this--------------day reviewed
ePla should
be r o suning bmitted
Kill planning
I rile mg address
yne se lima address
-----Jul- -- ------------- the than August 2a,Department
Y listed above. Written comments on the Draft EIR
later
of----- - -'2000n1,,
uled a meeting to con-
_ _-v'_"^_=_ -------_"-�_______-_-__ EIR sider
the proposed project yi2001
The City has not yet outlined i above
be rani al
Signature
by'City of any future meeting date to c0nstder the
proposed protect and to certnyy the Final EIR.
Please contact Alex P. Meyerho R, Principal Plan-
ner(760-323-8245) If you have questions regpd-
ing the City's review process for considering the
Draft FIR.
PUB July 21, 2001 _ - --
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO POLICY 6.22.2
OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO
ALLOW ALTERNATIVE BUFFERS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL USES
OR MIXED-USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
--------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Lundin Development Company(the "Applicant") has filed an application with the
City pursuant to Section 9402.00 for a General Plan Amendment to amend General Plan Land
Use Element Policy 6.22.2 to "Require a minimum (20) feet be landscaped as a buffer between
a commercial or mixed-use structure and the adjoining residential parcel. In the event that this
creates an undue hardship,the setback may be reduced where an alternative method of buffering,
utilizing walls, landscaping or other barriers or noise attenuation methods, provides equivalent and
satisfactory mitigation"; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to
consider the applicant's application for a General Plan Amendment was given in accordance with
applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2001 and continued to September 12, 2001 and September 26, 2001,
public hearings on the General Plan Amendment were held by the Planning Commission in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September26, 2001,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment to General Plan Policy 6.22.2; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider
the applicant's application for a General Plan Amendment was given in accordance with applicable
law; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001 and October 31, 2001, public hearings on the General Plan
Amendment were held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is
consistent with all General Plan objectives and policies; and
WHEREAS,the revision was considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)prepared
for the Case No. 5.0827, Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638, the Lundin Ralphs/SavOns Project.
The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR report prepared for the project, comments and responses
to the Draft EIR, Planning Commission public hearing minutes and comments and responses,
Notice of preparation comments and other miscellaneous correspondence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented
in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, the
environmental data including the initial study, the Final Environmental Impact Report and all
written and oral testimony presented.
� e.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows:
The General Plan Amendment was considered in the Final EIR prepared for the project.The Final
EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR and finds that it adequately discusses effect of the proposed General
Plan Amendment, and that on the basis of the Final EIR and comments receive during the public
review process, there is no substantial evidence that there will be a significant adverse impact on
the environment as a result of the General Plan Amendment.
Section 2:
This proposed revision of the General Plan to allow alternative buffers between commercial uses
or mixed-uses and residential uses in the event of a hardship will allow the General Plan to remain
internally consistent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, City Council approves
the Amendment to General Plan Policy 6.22.2, as shown in Exhibit "A".
ADOPTED this 31 st day of October 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By:
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
/ 4020
EXHIBIT A
General Plan Policy 6 22 2: Require a minimum (20) feet be landscaped as a buffer between a
commercial or mixed-use structure and the adjoining residential parcel. In the event that this
creates an undue hardship,the setback may be reduced where an alternative method of buffering,
utilizing walls, landscaping or other barriers or noise attenuation methods, provides equivalent and
satisfactory mitigation.
161
RESOLUTION NO. 20211
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CASE NO. 5.0827
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 259) AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29638 TO LUNDIN
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOR A PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A
PROPOSED INTEGRATED, 104,478 SQUARE FOOT,
SINGLE-PHASED NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING
CENTER CONSISTING OF A 57,342 SQUARE FOOT
SUPERMARKET,DRUG STORE WITH DRIVE-THROUGH
PHARMACY, TWO FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, AND
VARIOUS RETAIL SPACE AND THE SUBDIVISION OF
THE 9.9 GROSS ACRE/8.29 NET ACRE SITE INTO
EIGHT (8) PARCELS, RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.13
ACRES TO 2.84 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND
SUNRISE WAY, C-1 ZONE, SECTION 14.
WHEREAS, Lundin Development Company (the "Applicant") filed an application with the
City pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Case No. 5.0827 (Preliminary
Planned Development District No. 259) and pursuant to Section 9.60 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code, Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 for the development of an integrated,
single-phased, 104,00 square foot, neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting
of a Ralph's Supermarket, a drug store with drive-through pharmacy, three fast food
restaurants, two with drive-through lanes, and three retail buildings and the subdivision of
the 9.9 gross acre site (8.29 net acres after dedication) into nine parcels ranging in size
from 0.13 acres to 2.82 acres located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise
Way, C-1 Zone, Section 14, and;
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001,when previously considered by the City Council,the City
Council voted to require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project;
and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report(Final EIR)was prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), State CEQA guidelines, City CEQA
Implementing Guidelines and includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report, public
comments and written responses thereto, Notice of Preparation, Technical Appendix
(Environmental Noise Assessment and Traffic Study), Planning Commission minutes and
other correspondence; and
WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared for the Preliminary Planned Development District
(PD No. 259),for a 104,478 square foot neighborhood shopping center, a Tentative Parcel
Map No. 29638 and General Plan Amendment to amend Policy 6.22.2 to allow for
alternative buffers between Commercial uses or Mixed-uses and residential uses in the
event of a hardship; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearings of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider the Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development (PD
No, 259) and Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 were given in accordance with applicable
law; and
i
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2001, and continued to September 12, 2001, and on
September 26, 2001, public hearings on the application for a General Plan Amendment,
Preliminary Planned Development District 259 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 were
held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001,the Planning Commission voted to recommends that
the City Council approve the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearings of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider the Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development(PD No,259)and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638 were given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001 and October 31, 2001, public hearings on the application
for a General Plan Amendment, Preliminary Planned Development District 259 and
Tentative Tract Map No.29638 were held by the City Council in accordance with applicable
law; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the project will further the City's goals by
implementing the General Plan and contributing to the economic and physical of an
existing neighborhood shopping center; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has
considered the effect of the proposed project on the housing needs of the region in which
Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of
its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and found that the approval
of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner
which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City has balanced the project impacts, against the benefits its citizens will
receive from the project, such as the provision of jobs and services and has decided that
the benefits of the project approval outweigh its impacts and has adopted a Statement of
Facts and Findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff
report, all environmental data including the Draft EIR,the Final EIR, and all written and oral
testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
� Di
Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
Council finds that:
a. The General Plan Amendment , Preliminary Planned Development District
and Tentative Parcel Map are fully evaluated with the Draft EIR and Final
EIR that has been recommended to be certified by the City Council and is
compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA
procedures contained in the City's CEQA Guidelines; The final EIR
adequately address the general environmental setting of the proposed
Project, its significant environmental impacts, and the alternatives and the
mitigation measures related to each potentially significant environmental
effect for the proposed Project. The City Council has independently
reviewed, evaluated and considered the information contained in the FEIR.
Section 2: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66743.5, the City Council finds that
the proposed project and its provisions for its design and improvements are
compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses and
programs provided in the City's General Plan which includes a
Neighborhood Convenience Center at this location and Zoning Ordinance
which allows the proposed uses as permitted uses or conditional uses
within the C-1 retail business zone. The project complies with all property
development standards, with the exception of the proposed minimum lot
sizes, minimum lot widths, setbacks along the street frontages, setbacks
along the north property line and required parking, with the incorporation of
the conditions of approval.
Section 3: A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 in orderto assure
compliance with the above referenced mitigation measures during project
implementation. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be
included in the Final EIR.
Section 4: The Planned Development District(PD)application was filed and processed
accordingly per Section 9403.00 (Planned Development District)to ensure
compliance with the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance.
Section 5: The Tentative Parcel Map application was filed and processed accordingly
per Section 9.62 (Maps) to ensure compliance with the City of Palm
Springs Municipal Code.
Section 6: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5,the City Council finds that
the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement
are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses and
programs provided in the City's General Plan and any applicable specific
plan.
Section 7: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the City Council finds that
the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and
improvements are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land
use provided in the City's local open space plan.
Section 8: Pursuant to Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) Section 66474, the
City Council finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in
Exhibit A:
IZ3
a. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
The application entails subdividing 9.9 gross acres (8.29 net acres) into eight (8)
lots, for the development of a single-phased neighborhood commercial
convenience shopping center. The subject property is designated as "NCC"
(Neighborhood Convenience Center) on the City's General Plan Land Use Map
and "C-1" (Central Retail Business Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map, consistent
with the existing General Plan designations. The purpose of the Neighborhood
Convenience Center General Plan designation is to provide for an opportunity for
convenience commercial uses to be oriented directly to the residential
neighborhoods they need by means of a planned commercial complex, serve as
an integrated element of the neighborhood and to promote a harmonious
relationship between convenience services and the residential environment
through compatibility of site design and architectural treatment of structures.
Commercial/retail shopping centers that serve both residents and visitors is
specified as a recommended land use pursuant to the Neighborhood
Convenience Center designation in the General Plan. The proposed subdivision
and related project comply with the General Plan, in that the development and
uses proposed (supermarket, drug store, fast-food restaurants and various retail
tenants) are consistent with the intended uses within the applicable General Plan
designations and, with the mitigation measures recommended in the
Environmental Assessment, will not have a significant impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
In addition, the eastern one-half of the site is designated "NC" (Neighborhood
Commercial)and western one-half of the site is designated"HR" (Residential High)
pursuant to the Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan proposed
by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The purpose of the Neighborhood
Commercial designation is to allowfor neighborhood convenience commercial uses
that serve the daily needs of local residents in a complex or center that is primarily
accessed by automobile. The purpose of the High Density Residential is to
encourage the development of residential uses of 21 to 30 dwelling units per acre
and/or hotels in a private and exclusive setting. Tribal Planning staff has indicated
that, although the western half of the site is designated for future residential uses,
the proposed neighborhood commercial convenience center is in consonance with
the spirit and intent of the draft specific plan, providing needed retail uses to
residents of the area and tourists alike.
V
b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
The subject site is designated "NCC' (Neighborhood Convenience Center)
pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1" (Central Retail Business
Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The project has been designed to be consistent
with General Plan Policies 3.26.1 and 3.26.2 relative to Neighborhood Convenience
Center development, by providing a diversity of local serving commercial uses and
serving a radius of approximately one-half to one mile with a supermarket as a
major tenant. The General Plan designation of"NCC' requires a 10-30 acre site,
the proposed project location, an urbanized in-fill site, is 9.9 gross acres, 8.29 net
acres, the existing project is approximately 5 acres in size. The design and
improvement of the proposed subdivision and related Neighborhood Convenience
Center includes a 10 foot tall decorative block wall along the west property line and
the orientation of the Retail Building#3 along the north property line will serve as a
significant buffer from existing and future land uses to the north and west, where
two multiple family residential apartment projects currently exist. Ramon Road and
Sunrise Way,which are designated as major thoroughfares and scenic corridors on
the General Plan Land Use Map, will continue to serve as a significant buffer from
existing commercial land uses to the south and east of the site. Thus, the
subdivision and related planned development are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by
the proposed subdivision.
The project is located on approximately 9.9 gross acres, 8.29 net acres of land.
The easterly half of the property (approximately 5 gross acres) is currently
developed with a commercial shopping centertotaling approximately 46,080 square
feet of building area. An automobile service station was recently demolished at the
southeast corner of the property. The westerly half of the property (approximately
5 gross acres) is currently undeveloped with scattered desert brush, with the
exception of the Desert Water Agency domestic water facility on the north central
portion of the site. A Riverside County Flood Control District flood channel bisects
the property, entering the site at the northwest corner and curves to flow southerly
as it approaches Ramon Road, with the eastern boundary of the channel
corresponding to the approximate north-south center of the project site. The
developer contemplates paving over the channel to utilize the area within the field
of parking to create the integrated shopping center. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and
mature palms currently exist along all of the Sunrise Way project frontage and a
majority of the Ramon Road frontage. The subdivision and related project have
been designed to comply with a majority of the applicable property development
and/or performance standards of these zones, as required by the Zoning
Ordinance, with the exception of the proposed minimum lot sizes and required
parking, which have been considered pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance(Planned Development District). The proposed subdivision is consistent
with all applicable environmental plans, and is compatible with existing land uses in
the immediate vicinity of the project site, with the mitigation measures
recommended in the environmental assessment for the project. Adequate street
frontage exists to allow for smooth and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access to
the site and to minimize interference with traffic flows on existing or planned
thoroughfares adjacent to the project site, with the recommended mitigation
measures and/or conditions of approval. Thus, the site is physically suitable for the
type of development contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
I "D
d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
As stated above,the subdivision and related project have been designed to comply
with a majority of the applicable property development and/or performance
standards of these zones, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception
of the proposed minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths, setbacks along the street
frontages, setbacks along the north property line and required parking, which have
been considered pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Planned
Development District). The proposed subdivision and related neighborhood
convenience center contemplated under Tentative Parcel Map 29638 and Planned
Development District No.259 will be compatible with existing General Plan land use
and zoning designations to the north, east and west, with the recommended
mitigation measures relative to land use and planning and noise implemented with
the proposed project. Although there are lots within the proposed subdivision that
do not meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, as contemplated per the
Planned Development District,the design of the integrated, master-planned project
will not give the appearance that lots do meet minimum lot size criteria. Along the
west property line and portions of the north property line, where multiple family
residential apartment developments currently exist, it will be required through the
final development plan process that an 8 to 10 foot tall decorative block wall, and a
sufficient landscape buffer,where possible, be incorporated into the project design
to mitigate any land use compatibility concerns. Thus, the density of the proposed
subdivision and related planned development will be compatible with surrounding
neighborhood.
e. The design of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Conditions of this subdivision and related planned development will require full
public improvements along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way to be completed to the
satisfaction of the City with the proposed neighborhood convenience center
development.The proposed project is an urban in-fill development on a project site
located within the urbanized area of the City with existing development in all four
directions and has not been identified to be within an area of biological concern or
an area that would have any substantial impacts on fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and
safety including, but not limited to, the requirements for traffic signal and lane
configuration modifications along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, landscaped
median islands on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, and a combination screen
wall/landscape buffer or building orientation to minimize the potential noise and
aesthetic impacts between the proposed subdivision from the adjacent residential
development to the north and west.
` D�
g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The off-site improvements,which are required by the Zoning Ordinance, are related
to the project since patrons and employees of the project must use Ramon Road
and Sunrise Way to access the site. Currently, the western one-half of the subject
property is vacant and therefore usage of surrounding roads, sidewalks and utilities
is due is significantly less at this time. However, the future property owner will
benefit from any improvements made to the above streets such as travel lane
widening, modified traffic signalization for better traffic flow and other traffic
controls and aesthetic features, such as landscaped median islands on Ramon
Road and Sunrise Way.
Section 9: Pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council
finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A:
a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one
for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
The proposed Planned Development District will allow for an integrated, 104,000
square foot neighborhood commercial shopping center consisting of a Ralph's
Supermarket, a drug store with drive-through pharmacy, three fast food
restaurants, two of which are proposed to be served by drive-through lanes, and
three retail buildings, which is permitted pursuant to Section 9403.00 (Planned
Development District).
b. The proposed Planned Development District is consistent with the
applicable general and specific plans.
The subject property is designated as "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience
Center) on the City's General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1"(Central Retail
Business Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The purpose of the Neighborhood
Convenience Center General Plan designation is to provide for an opportunity for
convenience commercial uses to be oriented directly to the residential
neighborhoods they need by means of a planned commercial complex, serve as
an integrated element of the neighborhood and to promote a harmonious
relationship between convenience services and the residential environment
through compatibility of site design and architectural treatment of structures.
Commercial/retail shopping centers that serve both residents and visitors is
specified as a recommended land use pursuant to the Neighborhood
Convenience Center designation in the General Plan. The project complies with
the General Plan, in that the development and uses proposed (supermarket, drug
store, fast-food restaurants and various retail tenants) are consistent with the
intended uses within the applicable General Plan designations and, with the
mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, will not have a significant
impact on the surrounding neighborhood and supports the goals and policies of
the General Plan.
! � 7
C. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the
General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses
specifically permitted in the zones in which the proposed use is to be
located.
The proposed Preliminary Planned Development District application for a single-
phased, 104,000 square foot neighborhood convenience center, consisting of a
Ralph's Supermarket, a drug store with drive-through pharmacy, three quick
service restaurants two of which are proposed to be served by drive-through lanes,
and three retail buildings will provide retail services geared toward both residents
and tourists of the community, consistent with the objectives of the Neighborhood
Convenience Center component of the General Plan and the zone in which the site
is located (i.e. the site is zoned"C-1", Central Retail Business Zone). The planned
development will provide expanded retail conveniences for nearby residents and
tourists in a centralized location adjacent to two major thoroughfares(Ramon Road
and Sunrise Way), where the type of development proposed under this application
is most appropriate to handle the projected amount of automotive traffic and related
on-site parking. The subject project incorporates upgraded architectural styles and
landscaping in order to become aesthetically compatible with surrounding
developments. Additionally, driveways have been or will be required to be located
on the Ramon Road and Sunrise Way street frontages in a manner that will provide
safety and aesthetic benefits and is consistent with policies of the General Plan.
d. The design or improvements of the proposed planned development are
consistent with the General Plan.
The subject site is designated "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Center)
pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1" (Central Retail Business
Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The project has been designed to be consistent
with General Plan Policies 3.26.1 and 3.26.2 relative to Neighborhood Convenience
Center development, by providing a diversity of local serving commercial uses and
serving a radius of approximately one-half to one mile with a supermarket as a
major tenant. An 8 to 10 foot tall decorative block wall along the west and portions
of the north (interior) property lines, along with the orientation of the Retail Building
#3, in a zero lot line configuration along the north property line will serve as a
significant buffer from existing and future land uses to the north and west, where
two multiple family residential apartment projects currently exist. Ramon Road and
Sunrise Way,which are designated as majorthoroughfares and scenic corridors on
the General Plan Land Use Map, will continue to serve as a significant buffer from
existing commercial land uses to the south and east of the site. Thus, design and
improvement of the proposed planned development should be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
e. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences,
landscaping, and other features required in order to adjust said use to those
existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood (i.e. the site is
physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by the planned
development).
The project is located on approximately 9.9 gross acres, 8.29 net acres of vacant
land. The easterly half of the property (approximately 5 gross acres) is currently
developed with a commercial shopping centertotaling approximately 46,080 square
feet of building area. An automobile service station was recently demolished at the
southeast corner of the property. The westerly half of the property (approximately
5 gross acres) is currently undeveloped with scattered desert brush, with the
exception of the Desert Water Agency domestic water facility on the north central
portion of the site. A Riverside County Flood Control District flood channel bisects
the property, entering the site at the northwest corner and curves to flow southerly
as it approaches Ramon Road, with the eastern boundary of the channel
corresponding to the approximate north-south center of the project site. The
developer contemplates paving over the channel to utilize the area within the field
of parking to create the integrated shopping center. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and
mature palms currently exist along all of the Sunrise Way project frontage and a
majority of the Ramon Road frontage. The project has been designed to comply
with a majority of the applicable property development and/or performance
standards of these zones, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception
of the proposed minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths, setbacks along the street
frontages, setbacks along the north property line and required parking, which have
been considered pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Planned
Development District). The proposed planned development is consistent with all
applicable environmental plans, and is compatible with existing land uses in the
immediate vicinity of the project site,with the mitigation measures recommended in
the Final EIR for the project. Adequate street frontage exists to allow for smooth
and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and to minimize
interference with traffic flows on existing or planned thoroughfares adjacent to the
project site, with the recommended mitigation measures and/or conditions of
approval. Thus, the site is physically suitable for the type of development
contemplated by the proposed planned development.
f. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed planned development.
As stated above, the project has been designed to comply with a majority of the
applicable property development and/or performance standards of these zones, as
required by the Zoning Ordinance,with the exception of the proposed minimum lot
sizes and required parking, which have been considered pursuant to Section
9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Planned Development District). The proposed
neighborhood convenience center contemplated under Planned Development
District No. 259 will be compatible with existing General Plan land use and zoning
designations to the north, east and west, with the recommended mitigation
measures relative to land use and planning and noise implemented with the
proposed project. Although there are lots within the related subdivision that do not
meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, as contemplated per the Planned
Development District, the design of the integrated, master-planned project will not
give the appearance that lots do not minimum lot size criteria. Along the north and
west property lines, where multiple family residential apartment developments
currently exist, to address these issues in this situation, it will be required through
lD9
the final development plan process that, to the greatest extent possible, canopy
trees and a shrub hedge be provided in a landscape planter sufficient in width to
accommodate a heavy landscape screen along the west and north property lines to
augment the perimeter screen walls along these property lines, where possible.
Large truck deliveries shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. to minimize potential noise impacts to residents of the adjacent apartment
complexes north and west of the site, and the decorative block walls on the interior
property lines be increased to eight to ten feet in height. Additionally, a dense
landscape hedge adjacent to the truck loading area and the Desert Water Agency
well site shall be incorporated into the project design.All of the above requirements
are necessary to mitigate any land use compatibility concerns between the
proposed neighborhood commercial center and adjacent residential developments
and/or vacant residentially zoned land. Thus, the density of the proposed planned
development will be compatible with surrounding neighborhood.
g. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly
designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be
generated by the proposed use.
The proposed Planned Development is bordered on two sides (east and south) by
existing roadways (Ramon Road and Sunrise Way), both of which are designated
as major thoroughfares per the General Plan. Based on the Traffic Study dated
February, 2000 prepared by Albert Grover and Associates, the future development
of the project will generate approximately 7,587 total daily trips, of which 5,573 are
new trips beyond the number of trips generated by the existing shopping center on
the eastern half of the site. This translates into approximately 1,040 trips(530 trips
in and 510 trips out) during the afternoon peak hour, the time at which the
combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic volumes are at their highest.
The project increase in trips associated with the development would account for
approximately 710 of the peak afternoon trips. The traffic report concluded that,
based on the estimate of 7,587 project related trips per day, the development of
the new shopping center will not result in increased delays or significant volume
capacity changes, such that the intersection will remain at a LOS "C" in the project
opening year (2000). However, in the analysis of future traffic conditions (2010),
the Traffic Study indicates that, with the shopping center developed as proposed,
the Ramon Road/Sunrise Way intersection will operate at a LOS "D"(long delay)
during the afternoon peak hour. In addition to the findings and recommendations
in the Traffic Study, the developer will be required to construct a 14-foot wide
landscaped, raised median island on Ramon Road from Sunrise Way South to the
west property line and Sunrise Way South from Ramon Road to the north property
line. The purpose of the raised medians would be to prohibit left turns out from the
driveways on Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, as is it estimated that future (2010)
traffic conditions would warrant controlled left turn movements based on the
relationship of the driveways and their proximity to the Ramon/Sunrise intersection.
The project proponent will also be required to contribute to roadway improvements
of regional benefit by participating in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund
(TUMF) program and comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Ordinance. All other secondary transportation related items, have been
incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project (Exhibit
A). With these conditions in place, the vehicular circulation system will not be
negatively impacted by trips generated from this project.
h. The conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare,
including any minor modifications of the zone's property development
standards.
All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and
safety including, but not limited to, the requirements for traffic signal modifications,
construction of raised landscaped median islands along the Ramon Road and
Sunrise Way frontages, street lane widening, provisions for delivery truck access,
new curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and a landscape/wall buffer between the project
and the adjacent residential developments.
i. A nexus and rough proportionality have been established for requirement of
dedication of the additional right-of-way to the City and the off-site
improvements as related to the Planned Development District.
The conditions requiring off-site improvements which are required by City
ordinances are related to the properfunction of the project in the proposed location.
Patrons and employees will utilize the three surrounding streets to access the site.
Conditions of approval require street widening, modifications of a traffic signal, and
the construction of raised, landscaped median islands on Raman Road and
Sunrise Way, the installation of other public improvements such as, but not limited
to, pavement, striping, curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the project frontages. All
of the required off-site improvements will provide direct and immediate safety
benefits to the patrons and owners of the proposed project and the requirements
will provide for an aesthetically pleasing site for its users to enjoy. The required
improvements are in rights-of-way immediately adjacent to the site, which must be
utilized by those accessing the subject site. These improvements and/or mitigation
include the payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF)fees upon
issuance of building permits of all phases of the project, the installation of new bus
bay turnouts along Ramon Road and Sunrise Way, as well as the required
improvements mentioned above. Without the proposed project, which will provide
for approximately 104,000 square feet of retail commercial uses and approximately
5,573 new automobile trips to the project site, these improvements would not be
warranted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City
Council hereby approves Case No. 5.0827(Planned Development District No. 259)
and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638 subject to those conditions set forth in the in
Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the Department of Planning and Building,which are
to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless other
specified.
ADOPTED this 31st day of October , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By:
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
r
1 D�z
Res. No. 20211
Page 13
RESOLUTION NO. 20211
EXHIBIT A
Case No. 5.0827 (PD 259) and Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638
Lundin Development Company
Northwest Corner of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way
October 31, 2001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer,the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief
or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
1a. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable
regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other
City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district
regulations.
1 b. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void
or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory
agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case No. 5.0827 (PD 259) and
Tentative Parcel Map No. 29638. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the
applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs
and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's
associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the
City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains
the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should
it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision
to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal,
shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
2. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 a filing fee of $78.00 is required.
This project has a de minimus impact on fish and wildlife, and a Certificate of Fee
Exemption shall be completed by the City and two copies filed with the County
Clerk. This application shall not be final until such fee is paid and the Certificate of
Fee Exemption is filed. Fee shall in the form of a money order or cashier's check
payable to Riverside County.
3. All mitigation measures adopted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program shall be complied with.
Res. No. 20211
Page 14
4. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9403.00
of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building
elevations,floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans,
exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross
sections, property development standards, bus shelter design, exterior building
materials(walls, paving and other item as necessary)and other such documents as
required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted
within two (2) years of the City Council approval of the preliminary planned
development district.
5. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted
for approval per Condition No.4 above. Landscape plans shall be approved by the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal.
6. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape
Document Package to the Director of Planning and Building for review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal
Code for specific requirements.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall
be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the
Municipal Code for specific requirements.
8. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site
disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or
landscaped.
9. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and
6" deep. The irrigation system shall be field tested prior to final approval of the
project. Section 14.24.020 of the Municipal Code prohibits nuisance water from
entering the public streets, roadways or gutters.
10. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public
sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City
of Palm Springs Engineering specifications.
11. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration
of covenants, conditions and restrictions("CC&R's")to the Director of Planning and
Building for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded
prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the
City, with the right to lien the property for enforcement and maintenance costs
incurred by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require
maintenance of all property in a good condition, in accordance with all ordinances
and shall include provisions for reciprocal access and parking throughout the
shopping center and incorporate appropriate conditions contained herein.
The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of$
2,000.00, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney.
12, Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A
detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission prior to issuance of building permits.
13. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color.
Res. No. 20211
Page 15
14. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage
points both existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend
with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof
plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the
roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall
be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening.
15. No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed
building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial
areas.
16. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained in compliance with the
corner cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D.
17. The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
18. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height.
19. In accordance with Section 93.21.00 of the Lighting Ordinance, an exterior lighting
plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning &
Building prior to the issuance of building permits. A photometric study for the
parking areas and manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building,
in the landscaping, and in the parking lot shall be submitted for approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings,
down-lights shall be utilized.
20. Not used.
21. Parking lot light fixtures shall align with stall striping and shall be located two to
three feet from curb face.
22. Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and
recyclable materials enclosures prior to issuance of a building permit.
23. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code
regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in
lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building
permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform
Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1/4% for residential
projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-
family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said
location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building
and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded
agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and
viewing.
24. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except
approved alarm systems and approved drive-through restaurants.
25. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of
the proposed plan.
Res. No. 20211
Page 16
26. Vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed development including
company vehicles or employees vehicles shall not be permitted to park off the
proposed building site unless a parking management plan has been approved by
the Planning Commission.
27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical
boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened
and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located
toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the
frontage(s)of the project. Said transformer(s)must be adequately and decoratively
screened.
28. The applicant shall provide all tenants with Conditions of Approval of this project.
29. A Land Use Permit shall be obtained for each future indoor and outdoor restaurant
use prior to occupancy of these users and any outdoor Christmas Tree parking lot
sales.
30. Loading space facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 9307.00 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Said facilities shall be indicated on the site plan and approved
prior to issuance of building permits.
31. Islands of not less than 9 feet in width with a minimum of 6 feet of planter shall be
provided every 10 parking spaces. Additional islands may be necessary to comply
with shading requirements, as set forth in Section 9306.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Details to be provided with final landscape plan.
32. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 to 6 inch double stripe - hairpin or
elongated "U" design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6"
barrier curb shall provide wheel stops.
33, Concrete walks with a minimum width of two (2) feet shall be installed adjacent to
end parking spaces or end spaces shall be increased to eleven (11) feet wide.
34. Tree wells shall be provided within the parking lot and shall have a planting area of
six feet in diameter/width.
35. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide; compact sized
spaces shall be 15 feet deep by 8 feet wide. Handicap parking spaces shall be 18
feet deep by 9 feet wide plus a 5 foot walkway at the right side of the parking
space;two(2)handicap spaces can share a common walkway. One in every eight
(8) handicap accessible spaces, but not less than one (1), shall be served by an 8
foot walkway on the right side and shall be designated as "van accessible".
36. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location
of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and
the path of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential
difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future
grading plans for the property.
37. Compact and handicapped spaces shall be appropriately marked per Section
9306.00C 10.
Res. No. 20211
Page 17
38, Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) feet from face of walls, fences,
buildings, or other structures. Areas that are not part of the maneuvering area shall
have curbs placed at a minimum of two (2) feet from the face of walls, fences or
buildings adjoining driveways.
39. All awnings shall be maintained and periodically cleaned.
40. Not used.
41. The project shall comply with the City of Palm Springs Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Ordinance which establishes transportation demand
management requirements for the City of Palm Springs. Refer to Chapter 8.40 of
the Municipal Code for specific requirements.
42. Not used.
43. The developer shall design, install and maintain design elements recommended
pursuant to the Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan into the
final development plans for the project, with this condition to be included in the
CC&R's as follows:
— A Type 1 Gateway feature on-site at the intersection of Ramon Road and
Sunrise Way;
— Shade trees in an informal pattern along both street frontages;
— Native Washingtonia Filifera Palms and a combination of screen walls and
evergreen shrub massing along the Sunrise Way frontage; and
— All other landscape elements contained in these conditions of approval.
44. All parking areas and drive-through lanes shall be adequately screened pursuant to
Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such, four-foot high screen walls
and/or berms are required. Should berming be used adjacent to on-site retention
basins for on-site drainage, the berming shall be designed without extreme slopes
for a more natural appearance. If walls are utilized, the design, height, texture and
color of the walls shall be submitted for review and approval of the Director of
Planning and Building prior to the issuance of building permits.
45. A landscape screen (4'/ feet in width or greater) shall be provided along the west
property line, to the extent possible along the north property line, the north side of
the loading dock for the supermarket, west of the loading area for the drug store to
screen these activities from areas of public view. Heavy landscape screening in the
streetscape areas adjacent to the drive-through lanes for the fast-food restaurants
shall also be provided, as indicated on the preliminary development plans. Details
of the required screening shall be indicated on the Final Development Plans and
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance
of building permits.
46. A 10'raised screen wall shall be provided to better conceal the loading dock for the
supermarket and the drug store from areas of public view and contain noise.
Details of the wall and overhead trellis shall be reviewed as part of the Final
Development Plans by the Planning Commission.
Res. No. 20211
Page 18
47. Maintenance of all walls and structures shall be included in the CC&Rs, as required
by Condition# 11.
48. No more than 25%of the total square footage of the project shall include restaurant
uses, unless approved by the Planning Commission.
49. The site is contemplated to be developed in one phase. If phasing is proposed a
phasing plan shall be submitted with the Final Planned Development. If at such time
it is contemplated that the project site will be developed in multiple phases, future
building pads shall be treated with a dust inhibiting agent, hydroseeded and have
an automatic irrigation system installed in conjunction with the development of
Phase One, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
50. The project shall be designed to comply with Section 9210.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Neighborhood Shopping Center, with the exception of specific
modifications contemplated pursuant to this Planned Development District, such as
a reduction in lot size and lot width as shown on Tentative Parcel Map 29638,
building setbacks on the approved site plan, and landscape setbacks to parking on
the approved site plan.
51. Bus shelters shall be constructed along the Ramon Road and Sunrise Way street
frontages adjacent to the bus bay turnout areas, as indicated on the conceptual site
plan. The design of the bus shelters shall be integrated architecturally with the
architecture of the buildings and shall be submitted with the Final Planned
Development. The developer shall contact SunLine Transit for details regarding
bus stop furniture/shelter requirements. The property owner shall clean and
maintain bus shelters under separate agreement with SunLine Transit.
52. Decorative screen walls (or acceptable alternate, as approved by the Director of
Planning and Building) shall be provided around the perimeter of all cart corrals
within the parking area.
53. The final design of the screen walls for cart storage adjacent to the entrance to the
building shall be reviewed and approved with the final development plans by the
Planning Commission.
54. Condition 66, 66A and 66B shall be included in the CC&Rs.
55. Pedestrian"nodes"with furniture, shading, and other pedestrian amenities shall be
provided in locations as indicated on the conceptual site plan. Catalog cuts of all
street furniture shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as
part of the final landscape plan package prior to the issuance of building permits.
Pedestrian nodes shall be buffered with landscaping around their perimeters, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. A detail of these areas will be
provide in the final landscape plans.
56, A material sample of the proposed special paving material shall be submitted for
review and approval as part of the Final Planned Development
57, No roof top advertising or signage shall be permitted on the buildings.
58. A 20' landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to the parking area behind the
Sunrise Way property line. Additional landscape buffers shall be required at the
Ramon Road driveways adjacent to the parking areas. An additional landscape
buffer shall be required south of the SavOn's trash/recycling enclosure.
Res. No. 20211
Page 19
59. The final site, landscape and irrigation plans shall incorporate design elements to
serve and enhance the pedestrian and alternative transportation component, with
functional and attractive pedestrian areas, an enhanced internal pedestrian
circulation system with special paving and additional landscaped areas in said
pedestrian areas and lining the pedestrian circulation system, as indicated on the
preliminary site plan.
60. The trash enclosures will be shown on the Final Planned Development plans with
a screening detail and shall be relocated to not be as visible from Ramon Road and
Sunrise Way.
61. The final colors shall be consistent with those indicated on the architectural
elevations and color and material sample boards for the project, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning and Building.
62. A 10% reduction in parking shall be approved as part of the project.
63. Streetscape landscape buffers in areas adjacent to the bus turnouts on Sunrise
Way and Ramon Road shall be larger and feature additional planting wherever
possible, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. The final
development plans shall indicated compliance with this condition.
64. The final design of the landscape planters within the parking field shall be designed
to include a minimum of 50%shading of the entire parking lot and shall be reviewed
and approved as part of the final development plans, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission.
65. The applicant shall construct a decorative 8'- 10' block wall along the western and
northern property line. The final design will be approved by the Planning
Commission as part of the Final Planned Development.
66. Left turns out of the shopping center from the easternmost driveway on Ramon
Road shall be permitted from the opening date of the shopping center until one of
the following occurs: 1) An accident pattern is established or multi-way stop
accident warrants are met, as determined by the City Engineer; or 2) A Ramon
Road volume of 25,000 vehicles per day is exceeded along the project frontage. If
10 years after the date of City Council approval have elapsed and neither 1 or 2
above have occurred, the security required under Condition No. 66B shall be
returned to the paying party. If items 1 or 2 above become applicable,then the City
Engineer shall commence construction modifications to the Ramon Road median
island to prohibit left turns out of the easternmost driveway without further advance
notice to the property owners and tenants within the shopping center beyond that
specified in Condition No. 66A below.
66A. A covenant containing the above information shall be recorded against all parcels
within the shopping center subdivision in conjunction with the Final Map and a
tenant disclosure statement outlining the above requirement shall be included in all
tenant leases and within the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(C,C&R's)for
the project, in a format acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building, the City
Attorney and the City Engineer.
66B. A cash deposit in an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be submitted to
financially secure any necessary future improvements on Ramon Road that would
restrict left turns out from this driveway, as determined by the City Engineer.
Res. No. 20211
Page 20
67. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Lundin Development Co. shall deposit
$50,000 to the City for the purposes of preparing a City-wide Historic Resources
Survey.
These funds shall be deposited into a dedicated account and shall not be used for
any other purpose.
This Condition of Approval shall become null and void if:
a. Any CEQA challenge is filed against the project's EIR, or
b. Any Referendum is legally effected, or other litigation is filed challenging the
approval of this project, or
c. The project does not proceed to building permit.
The Survey's specific criteria, timing, and terms of adoption shall include input from
the Palm Springs Modern Committee and the Historic Site Preservation board, and
be approved by the City Council.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
68. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code.
WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES:
69. The location of the trash enclosure is acceptable subject to approved construction
details approved by the Director of Building and Safety consistent with approved
City details.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
70. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
FIRE:
1. Construction shall be in accordance with 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, 1996 NEC, UL
listings, CSFM listings, Palm Springs Ordinance 1570, Desert Water Agency
requirements, NFPAStandards 13, 24,25,26,71,72,72E,72G. 96,110, 760, plus UL
- 300 requirements, RivCo Flood Control District / Planning Division and RivCo
Environment Health Department/Hazardous Materials Division.
2. Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance
with the 1998 CFC, Art. 9, Sec. 902.
3. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20'
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 14'6" in accordance with
1998 CFC, Art.9, Sec. 902.2.21 and PSO 1570.
Res. No. 20211
Page 21
4. Required marking of Fire Apparatus Roads and Fire-Protection Equipment shall be
in accordance with the 1998 CFC Art. 9, Sec. 901.4.
5. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and constructed as all weather
capable and able to support a fire truck weighing 67,000 Lbs. in accordance with
1998 CFC, Art. 9, Sec. 902.2.2 and PSP 1570.
6. The turning radius of fire apparatus roads shall be at least 43' from centerline in
accordance with 1998 CFC, Art. 9, Sec. 902.2.2.3 and PSO 1570.
7. Construction site fencing required per PSO 1570 if combustible construction is
5,000 Sq. Ft. Or more or if the Fire Marshal deems necessary as the Authority
Having Jurisdiction.
8. Construction site fire department access gates shall be at least 14' in width and
equipped with a frangible chain and padlock.
9. A construction site guard is required per PSO 1570, for combustible construction
over 10,000 Sq.Ft., or when the Fire Marshal deems necessary as the Authority
Having Jurisdiction. The guard shall remain intact until buildings are stuccoed or
covered and secured with lockable doors and windows.
10. The guard must be on duty at the construction site during all normal non-working
hours or as the Fire Marshal deems necessary.
11. Provide Functional Fire Hydrant(s) on site before construction begins or
combustible materials are delivered on site. The location and number shall be
determined by the Fire Marshall. Contact the Fire Marshall's office as soon as
possible for further direction.
12. Where underground water mains are to be provided, they shall be installed,
completed and in service with fire hydrants or standpipes located as directed by this
office, but not later than the time when combustible materials are delivered to the
construction site.
13. Free access from the street to fire hydrants and to outside connections for
standpipes, sprinklers or otherfire extinguishing equipment,whether permanent or
temporary, shall be provided and maintained at all times.
14. Access for fire fighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the
start of construction and maintained until all construction is complete.
15. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with 1998 CFC Art. 9, Sec.
903.4, and Appendix III-B plus DWA specifications.
16. A complete Automatic Fire Extinguishing System equipped with 24 hour monitoring
is required in accordance with 1998 CFC Art. 10, Sec. 1003, 1998 CBC, Chapters
3,4,5,9 and 10, PSO 1570 and NFPA 13. Upgraded construction not accepted lieu
of a fire sprinkler system. Final determination for Fire Sprinkler System
requirements to be made by City of Palm Springs Fire Marshal as Local Authority
Having Jurisdiction.
Res. No. 20211
Page 22
17. Submittal to include manufacturers data/cut sheets and listings with expiration
dates on all equipment and material used. Submittal to include hydraulic
calculations, Sprinkler heads shall be new, UL listed and CSFM approved.
Monitoring and alarms shall be in accordance with the 1998 CFC and NFPA 71 and
72,
18. All private fire service mains and their appurtenances to be installed in accordance
with NFPA 24.
19. All underground pipe and thrust blocks to be inspected by this office before
backfilling.
20. Contact this office at least 24 hours in advance for inspections, flushes and tests.
21. Class III Standpipes shall be installed in accordance with 1998 UFC, Art. 10, Sec.
1004 and 1998 CBC Chapter 9, Standard 9-2. Contact building official.
22. A ventilating Hood & Duct system shall be provided in accordance with the 1998
CFC, 1998 CBC, 1998 UMC, 1998 UPC, RivCo Health Department Regulations,
and UL-300 for commercial -type food heat-processing equipment that produces
grease - laden vapors.
23. An approved Hood & Duct Automatic Fire Extinguishing System shall be installed
in accordance with 1998 CFC, Art. 10, NFPA 96 and UL - 300. Submit detailed
plans directly to this office for review as soon as possible. Submittal shall include
manufacturers data/cut sheets and listings with expiration dates on all equipment
and materials used.
24. A Commercial Fire Alarm System required. Installation and maintenance of a fire
alarm system shall be in accordance with 1998 CFC,Art. 10, Sec. 1007, NFPA 71-
72 and 760. Submit detailed plans directly to this office for review as soon as
possible. Submittal shall include manufacturers data/cut sheets and listings with
expiration dates on all equipment and materials used. Include battery calculations
with submittal.
25. Provide letters from designated UL Listed Central Station(s) used directly to this
office for file. Notify this office immediately of any change in Central Service.
26, The installation of all Fire Alarm Equipment and Wiring shall be in accordance with
NFPA 72 and 760.
27. Upon completion of the installation of the Fire Alarm System, a satisfactory test of
the entire system shall be made. Contact this office at least 24 hours in advance
for inspection requests.
28. Fire Dampers shall be provided where air ducts penetrate fire-rated walls or
ceilings. Contact building official for requirements and testing.
29. Smoke Dampers and Activating Smoke and/or Heat Detectors shall be in
accordance with the 1998 California Building Code and must be installed separately
from the Fire Alarm System. The signals for these devices shall not be included
with any fire alarm or waterflow signal. Contact building official for requirements
and testing.
Res. No. 20211
Page 23
30. Exit Doors, Corridors, Assemblies, Gates, Barriers, Stairways, Aisles, Spaces and
Ramps shall be in accordance with 1998 CBC. Contact building official.
31. Exit Illumination and Exit Signs shall be in accordance with 1998 California Building
Code. Contact Building Official.
32. Low Level exit signs where required by 1998 CBC Chapter 10 and building official
shall be Nuclear type as approved by this office.
33. Flame Retardant Treatment and Standards shall be in accordance with 1998 CFC.
Submit certificates directly to this office as soon as possible.
34. Further comments as conditions warrant and upon review of construction plans.
ENGINEERING
STREETS
1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit. Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950 -
Restricting Street Work on Major and Secondary Thoroughfares.
2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the
Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable:
A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
B. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF
applicable.
C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment
agreements/licenses,covenants,reimbursement agreements,etc. required
by these conditions.
3. The property owner shall enter into a reciprocal access agreement with the
owner(s), master lease and all sub-leases, Desert Water Agency and Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and provide a copy of same
to the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit.
SUNRISE WAY SOUTH
4. Dedicate an additional right-of-way of 6 feet along the frontage of APN 508-110-
008 and 10 feet along the frontage of APN 508-110-007 to provide the ultimate half
street width of 50 feet along the entire frontage, together with a property line -
corner cut-back at the SOUTHEAST corner of the subject property in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 105.
4A. Dedicate an additional right-of-way easement forsidewalk purposes along the back
of sidewalk at the bus turn out areas.
Res. No. 20211
Page 24
4B. The developer shall pay his fair share, $4025.00, for the widening of the Sunrise
Way and Ramon Road intersection prior to issuance of the grading and building
permit.
5. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 38 feet WEST of centerline along the entire
frontage,with a 35 foot radius curb return at the SOUTHEAST corner of the subject
property per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
6. The driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have minimum width of 24 feet. The
driveway shall have 2 exit lanes.
The driveway shall be designed for all turning movements. The intersection design
shall be consistent with the location of the driveway on the east side of Sunrise
Way.
7. Construct a minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire
frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No, 210.
8. Construct a curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards at
the SOUTHEAST corner of the subject property and at both sides of the driveway
per City of Palm Springs Std. Dwg. Nos. 212 and 212A.
9. Construct a 14-foot wide landscaped, raised median island as specified by the City
Engineer from the intersection of Ramon Road to the north property line of the
project. Provide a left turn pocket on the north side of the Sunrise Way at Ramon
Road intersection. Provide a left turn pocket on the south side of the Sunrise Way
at Main Entry intersection. The nose width shall be 4 feet wide and shall have stone
cobbles to the point where the desertscape can begin. The length of the turn
pockets shall be determined per Caltrans Highway Design Manual Sec.405 and be
approved by the City Engineer. (Developer shall annex the property to an existing
City Parkway District for maintenance of the future landscaped median island and
pay all associated fees prior to issuance of a grading or building permit).
9A. Construct a 180 foot long by 10-foot wide bus turn out on the SUNRISE WAY
SOUTH frontage between the south driveway and the Ramon Road intersection.
The configuration and location shall be approved by the City Engineer in
conjunction with SunLine Transit. Contact SunLine Transit for details regarding
busstop furniture/shelter requirements. Developer shall install said shelter and
furniture.
10. Remove and replace existing pavement with a minimum pavement section of 5 inch
asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade
of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter
to clean sawcut edge of existing pavement along the entire frontage in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 340. The pavement
section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Res. No. 20211
Page 25
RAMON ROAD EAST
11. Dedicate an additional right-of-way of 6 feet along the frontage of APN 508-110-
008 and 10 feet along the frontage of APN 508-110-007 to provide the ultimate half
street width of 50 feet along the entire frontage, together with a property line -
corner cut-back at the southeast corner of the subject property in accordance with
City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 105.
11A. Dedicate an additional right-of-way easement for sidewalk purposes along the back
of sidewalk at the bus turn out areas.
12. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 38 feet NORTH of centerline along the entire
frontage,with a 35 foot radius curb return at the SOUTHEAST corner of the subject
property per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
13. The main driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have minimum width of 24 feet.
The main driveway shall have 2 exit lanes and shall have right turn in, right turn out,
and left turn in turning movements. Left turn out movements shall be allowed as
conditioned for in Planning item #66.
13A. The westernmost driveway on Ramon Road shall be removed or relocated and
separated by a sufficient distance from the easternmost driveway serving the
adjacent apartment complex to the west, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. It
shall be restricted to right turn in and right turn out movements only.
14. Construct a 10 foot wide combination sidewalk and bicycle path along the entire
RAMON ROAD EAST frontage.The construction shall be adjacent to the curb with
colored Portland Cement concrete. The admixture shall be Palm Springs Tan,
Desert Sand, or approved equal color by the Engineering Department. The
concrete shall receive a broom finish.
15. Construct a 14-foot wide landscaped, raised median island as specified by the City
Engineer from SUNRISE WAY SOUTH to WEST DRIVEWAY. Provide a left turn
pocket on the WEST side of the SUNRISE WAY SOUTH at RAMON ROAD EAST
intersection. The nose width shall be 4 feet wide and shall have stone cobbles to
the point where the desertscape can begin. The length of the turn pockets shall be
determined per Caltrans Highway Design Manual Sec.405 and be approved by the
City Engineer.
16. Construct a 130-foot long by 10-foot wide bus turn out on the RAMON ROAD
EAST frontage between the driveway and the Sunrise Way intersection. The
configuration shall be approved by the City Engineer in conjunction with SunLine
Transit. Contact SunLine Transit for details regarding bus stop furniture/shelter
requirements. Developer shall install said shelter and furniture.
17. Remove and replace existing pavement with a minimum pavement section of 5 inch
asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade
of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from clean sawcut edge of
existing pavement to edge of proposed gutter along the entire frontage in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 AND 340. The
pavement section shall be designed, using"R"values, by a licensed Soils Engineer
and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Res. No. 20211
Page 26
SANITARY SEWER
18. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be
connected at manhole.
GRADING
19. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of
record documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of
the Grading Plan.
20. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering
Department for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for comments prior to submittal to the Engineering Department.
A PM 10 (dust control) Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Building
Division prior to approval of the grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal includes the following:
A. Copy of Planning Department comments regarding the grading plan.
B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning
Department.
D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months.
E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions.
F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions.
G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687) to the
City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
21. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and
6" deep - to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or
gutters.
22. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687) and provide a
copy of same, when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading
permit.
23. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00, the
developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00)
per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and
development.
Res. No. 20211
Page 27
24. A soils report prepared by a licensed Soils Engineer shall be required for and
incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site.A copy of
the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the
Engineering Department along with plans, calculations and other information
subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
25. Contact the Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the
PM10 (dust control) Plan requirements.
25A. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the import or
export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department
of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of
Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and
Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) or a verbal release from that office prior
to the issuance of the City grading permit. The California Department of Food and
Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. (Phone:
760-776-8208)
DRAINAGE
26. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these
flows to an approved drainage structure. On-site retention/detention or other
measures approved by the City Engineer shall be required if off-site facilities are
determined to be unable to handle the increased flows generated by the
development of the site. Provide calculations to determine if the developed Q
exceeds the capacity of the approved drainage carriers.
27. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees and/or
construction of drainage facilities according to the approved Master Plan of Flood
Control and Drainage. Validated costs incurred by the developer for design and
construction of storm and/or drainage improvements adjacent to such development
as shown in said Master Plan shall be credited toward the drainage fee otherwise
due or in the event such cost exceeds the fee otherwise due, the City will enter into
a reimbursement agreement with developerto reimburse him for such excess costs
from drainage fees collected from other development. This condition shall be
complied with,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, priorto filing any final map or
issuance of the building permit.
28, The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The
acreage drainage fee at the present time is$9,212.00 per acre per Resolution No.
15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. If the east side of
the project(APN 508-110-007) has already paid the drainage fee then the fee shall
be paid for the new development on the south portion of APN 508-110-042
containing 3.27 Acres.
29. Undergrounding of the Baristo Wash Channel shall be reviewed and approved by
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) and the
City Engineer.A copy of all approved plans and specifications and easements shall
be submitted to the City Engineer.
Res. No. 20211
Page 28
ON-SITE
30. The minimum pavement section for all on-site streets/parking areas shall be 2-1/2
inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal. The pavement
section shall be designed, using "R" values, determined by a licensed Soils
Engineer and submitted with the Fine Grading Plan to the City Engineer for
approval.
31. The on-site parking lot shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Zoning Ordinance, Section 9306.00.
32. All drive-thru facilities shall provide adequate turning radii and stacking per code.
GENERAL
33. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall
receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one
additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement
shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface.
34. All existing and proposed utility lines that are less than 35 kV on/or adjacent to this
project shall be undergrounded. The location and size of the existing overhead
facilities shall be provided to the Engineering Department along with written
confirmation from the involved utility company(s) that the required deposit to
underground the facility(s) has been paid, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
All undergrounding of utilities shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
35. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and
proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.
The approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City
of Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
36. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for
this project at the earliest possible date.
37. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway
which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight
distance per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 203.
38. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public
sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City
of Palm Springs Engineering specifications.
MAP
39. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the
traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies
of record documents shall be submitted with the Parcel Map to the Engineering
Department.
Res. No. 20211
Page 29
40. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property and
the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all areas of right-of-way or
easement dedication shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval with the Grant Deed.
41. A Parcel Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil
Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall
be made prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
TRAFFIC
42. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around
all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap
accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional
right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation
of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes and all
appurtenances located on the SUNRISE WAY SOUTH and RAMON ROAD EAST
frontages of the subject property.
43. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and modification of the
existing traffic signal poles, conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on
the NORTHWEST corner of SUNRISE WAY SOUTH and RAMON ROAD EAST in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Palm Springs,
44. The Developer shall install a 30 inch "STOP"sign and standard "STOP BAR" and
"STOP LEGEND" for the traffic exiting the project site per City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing Nos. 620-626 at the following locations:
SW Cor. Sunrise Way South and Driveway
NW Cor. Ramon Road East and East Driveway
NW Cor. Ramon Road East and West Driveway
45. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects
as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum,
all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State
of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES' dated 1996, or
subsequent additions in force at the time of construction.
46. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the
Retail/Service, Miscellaneous Retail Service, Fast Food Restaurant, Service
Station/Convenience Market ITE Code A and H land use.